[Python-Dev] Bumping autoconf from 2.68 to 2.69 (original) (raw)

Brett Cannon brett at python.org
Tue Oct 16 17:23:00 CEST 2012

On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Tres Seaver <tseaver at palladion.com> wrote:

-----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.

I think Barry's suggestion of updating default and leaving stable versions alone is a good one. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20121016/4ed3cd2d/attachment.html>

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list