On Dec 2 08:23, ASSI wrote: > 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.
gawk has moved to AC_PREREQ([2.71]) and the maintainer does not want to go back. I had to patch that already for Cygwin's gawk 5.1.1-1. Corinna
