a new-feature release is the same work as a bugfix release? ye kiddin'... Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > Wouldn't it be better to get libtool 1.5 out the door? The resources > required to achieve a releasable product are similar and CVS libtool > already contains most of the fixes that would go into a 1.4.3. > > Bob > > On Tue, 8 Oct 2002, Bonzini wrote: > > >>We sorely need a libtool 1.4.3 -- autoconf is consistently being blamed for >>its brokenness and in general its portability is flaky on some systems (like >>Darwin). >> >>I don't have the time and knowledge to propose myself for libtool >>maintainership, but I can trust people that do have this knowledge and put >>together the patched versions from various vendors (including Red Hat, >>Debian, and Mandrake), and post them to the Autoconf and/or Libtool mailing >>lists for public scrutiny. >> >>If the maintainer (who is it? the GNU machines say it is co-maintained by >>Alexandre Oliva, Gary V. Vaughan and Robert Boehne) says it's ok, then it >>will be released as 1.4.3; if it cannot be the `official' libtool 1.4.3, at >>least there will be a place to download a single amended version and people >>will stop complaining to the wrong mailing list. >> >>To contribute, please send me patches that you are using for libtool 1.4.2 >>at [EMAIL PROTECTED], >>CCing [EMAIL PROTECTED] . >> >>Paolo Bonzini >> >> >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Libtool mailing list >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool >> > > > ====================================== > Bob Friesenhahn > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen > > > > _______________________________________________ > Libtool mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool > >
_______________________________________________ Libtool mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
