Re: Stable release.

[David Kastrup]

David Kastrup <address@hidden> writes:

> Graham Percival <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 07:33:12AM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
>>> My proposal was just about a release addressing bit rot, namely just
>>> making sure that the equivalent of the existing release 2.14.2 can be
>>> compiled (with no regressions due to the recompilation) on current
>>> systems that insist on not using precompiled binaries from us (which is
>>> quite sensible for distributing GPLed software).
>>
>> Assuming that this is a 10-minute job, put stuff in the
>> stable/2.14 git branch, just in case somebody grabs the source
>> from git tarball.
>
> It's more than 10 minutes since I have to through
> hide-and-seek-and-recompile-and-check a few times.  But I don't think it
> will take me longer than a few hours.  The two compiler bug fixes should
> be reasonably easy to find again, and the C++ language issue should
> resurface through attempting to compile, and then be traceable via git
> blame.

Oh, and it might be that I misremembered and this C++ language issue was
actually in 2.12.  In that case, the only worry would be compiler bugs
that are likely already fixed in the mainstream distros (they tend to
pick up compiler bugfixes before the actual GCC releases).  It would
still be nice to have versions compiling under vanilla GCC 4.6.[0123]
and 4.7.0, but it would not be quite the disaster scenario I had in mind
when writing the original posting.

Whatever.  I am compiling now and seeing how far the unmodified source
gets me.

-- 
David Kastrup