Brian Inglis writes: >> How likely is it that they actually rely on that version already? > > Somewhat likely for some GNU packages and gnulib macros that specify > version prereqs: AC_PREREQ is used in 80 packages I have sources for.
Most distros still package 2.69 or even earlier and that includes some substantial rolling release distros. As long as these guys don't use the newer version it seems unlikely that we would actually need it, plus I don't see us spending time and effort debugging things that aren't even Cygwin specific. > After that version released in January, I've only had to patch one > package so far, which specified it in August, and they later reduced > it after discussion with distro package maintainers: > > $ grep 'AC_PREREQ(\[2\.[0-9]\+\])' */*.patch > bison/bison-3.7.90-revert-autoconf-upgrade.patch:-AC_PREREQ([2.71]) > bison/bison-3.7.90-revert-autoconf-upgrade.patch:+AC_PREREQ([2.68]) > wget2/configure-ac.upstream.patch:-AC_PREREQ([2.67]) > wget2/configure-ac.upstream.patch:+AC_PREREQ([2.69]) > Xcurses/x11-aclocal-m4-libtoolize.patch:+[AC_PREREQ([2.62])dnl We use > AC_PATH_PROGS_FEATURE_CHECK That's called "jumping the gun" I think. The distro package maintainers will be in their ears immediately and we can just sit back with the popcorn. Regards, Achim. -- +<[Q+ Matrix-12 WAVE#46+305 Neuron microQkb Andromeda XTk Blofeld]>+ SD adaptations for KORG EX-800 and Poly-800MkII V0.9: http://Synth.Stromeko.net/Downloads.html#KorgSDada
