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
