On Tue, 20 Jan 2026 at 09:20, Jonathan Wakely <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, 19 Jan 2026 at 19:16, Zack Weinberg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jan 15, 2026, at 6:03 PM, Paul Eggert wrote: > > > On 1/14/26 04:07, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > >> Would it make sense to do an Autoconf 2.72.1 release which is > > >> identical to 2.72 except it fixes this serious incompatibility with > > >> GCC 16? > > > > > > Easier would be to simply release what we've got. > > > > I was thinking the same thing. We have a whole bunch of relatively low- > > risk patches stacked up in git, might as well call them 2.73. > > > > I'd like to see some broad testing first, though. What if I put out an > > alpha release sometime this week and distribution maintainers do some > > mass rebuilds with it? Also, does anyone know of any high-importance > > patches waiting for review, or other high-importance bugs that should be > > addressed ASAP? > > A 2.73 release seems fine, but a 2.72.1 would be zero risk and has > already been tested. That would be easier for distros to switch to in > stable releases. If there isn't an official 2.72.1 then distros are > just going to patch 2.72 locally (we've already done this in Fedora, > as have Gentoo) and now we have at least three slightly different > versions of 2.72 in circulation, generating slightly different > 'configure' files, but claiming to be
(sorry, hit send too soon!) ... claiming to be 2.72
