On Mon, 14 Jul 2003, Dalibor Topic wrote: > I'm sorry about my confusing wording. While I have received interesting > replys to my critique of the process, I have not received a response on > the patch itself, except from an ironical remark about open source > developers and vacation. ;)
That was from me. :-) > Our patches are against libtool 1.5, I hope that's current enough. Patches against current CVS libtool are definitely preferred even though this puts more burden on the patch submitter. The easier and less risky your patch is to apply, the more likely it is to make its way into libtool. Libtool is complicated code with lots of similar parts, so it is easy for 'patch' to screw up if the patch was from a somewhat different libtool. Also, the patch submitter may discover that the bug he found has already been corrected in CVS. > On a side note, can I assume that all maintainers are listed in the > AUTHORS file? The AUTHORS file lists all the formal maintainers, past and present. Several of these authors have not maintained libtool in several years. Bob ====================================== Bob Friesenhahn [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen _______________________________________________ Libtool mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
