(original) (raw)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Hash: SHA1

On 10/16/2012 09:47 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
\> On Oct 16, 2012, at 05:32 AM, Trent Nelson wrote:
\>
\>> Anyway, back to the original question: does anyone know of reasons
\>> we shouldn't bump to 2.69? Any known incompatibilities?
\>
\> There will be problems building with 2.69 on Ubuntus older than
\> 12.10, and Debians older than wheezy.
\>
\> % rmadison autoconf autoconf | 2.61-4 | hardy | source,
\> all autoconf | 2.65-3ubuntu1 | lucid | source, all autoconf |
\> 2.67-2ubuntu1 | natty | source, all autoconf | 2.68-1ubuntu1 |
\> oneiric | source, all autoconf | 2.68-1ubuntu2 | precise |
\> source, all autoconf | 2.69-1ubuntu1 | quantal | source, all %
\> rmadison -u debian autoconf autoconf | 2.67-2 | squeeze | source, all
\> autoconf | 2.69-1 | wheezy | source, all autoconf | 2.69-1 | sid
\> | source, all
\>
\> FWIW, precise is Ubuntu 12.04 LTS, so it carries Python 2.7 and 3.2.
\> I think it would be fine to update the default branch (i.e. 3.4), but
\> I'm not sure what benefit you gain from making this change to stable
\> branches, and you could potentially cause build problems, which you
\> may not find out about for a while, e.g. when 2.7.4 is released and
\> all the distros go to update.

Agreed: this is really the same issue as bumping the VisualStudio
version (or any other build tooling) inside a release line: too much
potential for breakage for little gain.