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
