On 3 Jun 2000, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 2, 2000, Ossama Othman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I wanted to check with you about switching that branch to use CVS
> > autoconf and CVS automake.
>
> Unless there's a very pressing reason to do it, I'd rather be able to
> use libtool with older releases of autoconf and automake. I don't
> like the idea of forcing people to upgrade more than one tool at a
> time, since this makes it harder to figure out where problems that
> show up with the upgrades are.
Well, the CVS version of libtool does not work with the current CVS
version of autoconf. I am not sure if that is a "very pressing reason"
but it sure seems like a problem that is worth solving. For instance,
I would like to get some packages working with a cross compiler.
I can use autoconf from the CVS to get good cross compiler support
but I can not use libtool. If I downgrade to autoconf 2.13, I can
use libtool but I then would need to put a bunch of hacks into my
configure.in to fake up the cross compile support already in the
CVS version of autoconf.
Why don't we just create a new branch in the libtool CVS for
autoconf 2.14 support? We can fix all the problems caused by the
autoconf upgrade on the branch and then merge it back into
the HEAD down the road. Does anyone see a problem with that?
Mo Dejong
Red Hat Inc.
