newlib: require autoconf-2.69

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Jan 10 19:58, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On 10 Jan 2022 10:02, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > On Jan  7 14:09, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > On 07 Jan 2022 10:58, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > > > On Jan  6 01:10, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > > > On 05 Jan 2022 20:46, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > > > > do you want me to update newlib/ & libgloss/ to leverage this macro ?
> > > > > 
> > > > > looks like it's just as easy as passing -I to the top-level config dir when
> > > > > running aclocal.  since override.m4 overrides AC_INIT, it forces the version
> > > > > lock logic.  example diff for newlib/ is below.
> > > > > 
> > > > > lmk what you prefer here.
> > > > 
> > > > No worries.  I guess it's really better to stick to the same autoconf
> > > > requirements as gcc/binutils-gdb.
> > > 
> > > is that an approval to push the override.m4 approach ? :)
> > 
> > That was an approval to push your original patch as is, but I'd like
> > an approach to tweak and use override.m4 better, me thinks.  Do you
> > want to submit a patch for this?
> 
> i've posted two patches at this point.  the first one in this thread which only
> changed the AC_PREREQ lines, and a second one to leverage override.m4:
> https://sourceware.org/pipermail/newlib/2022/018829.html
> granted, it wasn't every single subdir, but that example patch is what i used
> everywhere and the resulting diff was basically copied & pasted.

The second one.  It was just inlined diff, not a patch submission, so
I was basically asking to create a real git formatted patch from there.

IOW, let's utilize override.m4 and bump _GCC_AUTOCONF_VERSION to 2.69.
Is that ok?


Corinna