Hi Charles, * Charles Wilson wrote on Sat, Jul 03, 2010 at 06:10:57PM CEST: > On 6/28/2010 2:10 AM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > * Charles Wilson wrote on Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 12:05:40AM CEST: > >> It obviously isn't SUPPOSED to be dead -- or it wouldn't be there. > > > > Well, I wouldn't put my money on that reasoning. > > <g>. Except that I do recall that back-in-the-day, this code WAS > actually used. That's why I had to change it as I did, before your > suggestion in Jan 2009 to use the save-.la-name-in-a-custom-variable > approach.
OK, thanks. > >> I feel (more) discouraged now (than usual), having wasted so much time > >> addressing a criticism of a patch that wasn't meant to be taken seriously. > > > > I would like to apologize for this comment making you do this extra > > work. Again, that review of mine was more sloppy than it should have > > been. > > Accepted (Although you didn't actually 'make' me do the extra work. > Your review did not actually REQUIRE it -- but your increasing > unhappiness with $host-specific code to ltmain.m4sh made it appear to me > that tackling it now -- before the cross-compile patch comes up for > review again -- was a good idea. It wasn't.) > > I apologize also for letting my frustration overtake my good sense. I > shouldn't have complained as...vociferously. You're just doing your job: > reviewing code to make sure libtool is as good as it can be. No hard feelings at all on my side. Except that I do have somewhat of a bad conscience for letting all the w32 stuff go on for so long. Let's hope we can improve that in the future, too. > I guess the issue is, the shared library model of PE/COFF is just so > different than ELF that the differences, to me, just don't seem to be > the kind of thing that can be handled by m4 code -- at least, given the > current architecture of the libtool script. Now, if the ENTIRE body of > 'libtool' were generated from libtool.m4, rather than the bulk of it > being presented in ltmain.m4sh...then maybe the "skeleton" could be more > platform-agnostic. > > But, two things: (1) this means moving a LOT of what we probably > consider "generic" code into libtool.m4 (imagine what that m4 would have > to look like, to eliminate ALL case $host statements), and (2) you'd > basically end up with, effectively, two DIFFERENT scripts that each CALL > themselves "libtool". The "ELF-ish" one would not look anything like > the "PE/COFF-ish" one. > > Maybe that's the right thing to do...long term. > > But that's a long-term project...I was just trying to fix a single > regression (that turned into a rabbit hole). Yep. I agree that a bigger cleanup could help here, and I agree that it's better to tackle that as an orthogonal issue. Maybe in the end a different structuring will even be easier once all the w32 stuff works, because then we can maybe see the bigger picture. > >> Anyway, if we're going to try and nail down these aspects of the API, I > >> think that's a good thing to do for libltdl2 (whether Gary's or some > >> other brainstorm). > > > > Yep, I guess. > > I guess that's what I'm getting at: I think some of this ugliness is > unavoidable given the major architectural differences between PE/COFF > and ELF -- and the EXISTING division of labor between libtool.m4 and > ltmain.m4sh. "Fixing" it is going to require...*major* changes. > > Given that...unless we plan to DO those major rewrites now...harping on > them with regards to w32 is counter-productive. Peter and I will > certainly try to put code into libtool.m4, but...it's not clear exactly > how successful it is possible for us to be, without beginning that major > rewrite process. OK. It is certainly helpful for review if you mention this with some code that could not end up in libtool.m4 that way. I realize I'm violently agreeing with you here as well, because your patch postings are usually very detailedly explained, as to which approaches you took and why and why not. > > I'm sorry if review is painful to accept, and I > > don't on purpose try to review in a way making you do double work. > > That that has happened now is bad, sorry about that. > > No, I think you misunderstand. *Review* is good. Critical review is even > better. > > But...the reason you found it so hard to review this patch -- I mean, > really, having to review six different discussions spread out over two > years? -- that's ridiculous! Who would expect THAT to happen quickly? > But how did we GET to that point: it was because in each of those > previous six attempts, the review process got stalled. Yep. > And that's the issue -- putting a hold on a patch or patch series with a > "I need to think about this"...and then not actually following up. I'm > not blameless: after a week or two of silence, I'd usually moved on to > something else, and it might be a while before I come back to "libtool". > If *I* had kept up the "pressure" maybe we all would have been able to > keep the details of the various discussions in our primary memory bank, > AND resolved the issue(s) in just a month or two, rather than 25 or 30. Maybe. But there are times when I need to concentrate on other things not Libtool, so that might not have worked even then. > > No, it isn't. But it happens nonetheless. Does that mean we might be > > overly critical on w32 patches? Maybe, for me I can't always reject > > that notion (backed by the GCS btw), esp. during times when I'm > > essentially the only person doing review. That's nothing personal, but > > it turns out to be a problem nonetheless. I reject the notion of being > > the only Libtool maintainer, and I'd rather step down than just open the > > floodgate for code that hasn't been properly reviewed or isn't in good > > shape. Somebody else needs to take responsibility for that. > > Oh, no, I don't think ANYBODY would ever say that ANY code -- much less > w32 code which, as discussed above, is invariably just plain ugly -- > should be allowed with no review, or "well, it's w32 specific so we just > have to let it go". OK, good we're agreeing on this. > > On the brighter side, haven't we made at least some good progress in the > > last few weeks? > > Yes, quite a bit. I am pleased by that, as well as the progress made > getting Peter's stuff in. Yep. :-) Cheers, Ralf
