Hi Paul, * Paul Eggert wrote on Wed, May 31, 2006 at 10:45:38AM CEST: > Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I didn't have any such headaches before the patch. > > I did.
OK. I understand and accept your decision on this. I guess you're simply right and I'm over-cautious. But then again, that is part of playing the "release manager" game, so I guess some of that is to be expected. ;-) > We can try enlisting others to test snapshots, with Debian and the > like. If we find further problems you can easily talk me into > reverting the eval-quoting changes, but right now I'm still inclined > to leave them in. Good. Then let's get people to test something we can think of as release-ready. FWIW, this is how far I see us away from 2.59d right now: - libtoolize --ltdl vs. autoreconf issue: patch posted, feedback desired: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/autoconf/2006-05/msg00118.html - here document braced parameter expansion bug in ksh93f (fixed in ksh93g 98-04-30): http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/autoconf-patches/2006-05/msg00122.html should we check for this bug and skip the shell? (A patch is is the works, we should probably wait for it?) - C4che versioning http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/autoconf/2006-05/msg00127.html Do we want this before 2.60? If yes, a working patch would be needed. (- and of course my dirname test glitch you found) If I had to decide (or nothing happens on these matters), I'd apply the first, think some more about the second, skip the third, and go ahead with 2.59d. And then suggest that we fix regressions or very serious bugs only afterwards. But that's IMVHO only. Cheers, Ralf
