Re: Debian-specific Autoconf patches

[Ralf Wildenhues]

Hi Paul,

* Paul Eggert wrote on Wed, May 31, 2006 at 10:45:38AM CEST:
> Ralf Wildenhues <address@hidden> 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