How can Autoconf help with the transition to stricter compilation defaults?

[Sam James via cfe-commits]

> On 12 Nov 2022, at 03:40, Zack Weinberg <zack at owlfolio.org> wrote:
> 
> Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat.com> writes:
>> based on a limited attempt to get this fixed about three years
>> ago, I expect that many of the problematic packages have not had their
>> configure scripts regenerated using autoconf for a decade or more.  This
>> means that as an autoconf maintainer, you unfortunately won't be able to
>> help us much.
> 
> I’m sadly not surprised.
> 
> This is definitely more work than I can see myself doing on a volunteer
> basis, but a 2.69.1 patch release — nothing that’s not already on trunk,
> cherry pick the changes needed to support the newer compilers (and
> also newer Perl and Bash and M4) is a thing that could happen.

I didn't want to ask you to do this because I felt fortunate enough
you were volunteering to handle 2.72, but this would indeed be a help,
because then I won't have to try persuade people they should totally upgrade,
and it should happen naturally enough with distro upgrades.

If you are willing, that would be welcome.

Of course, we'll have to go lobby them, but that is what it is :)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 358 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20221112/4fadd9f2/attachment.sig>