Daniel Reed wrote:
(Hiya. I have recently become Red Hat's libtool package maintainer.)
Hi Daniel,
On 2004-08-11T00:32+0900, Peter O'Gorman wrote: ) Joe Orton wrote: ) > It always disappoints me to do so too, that's why I'm making this plea ) > :) The fact that libtool 1.5-based configure scripts fail on systems ) > without a C++ compiler is a severe regression which outweighs all the ) > great features and fixes since 1.4, unfortunately. ) I guess I must have seen this report at some point, but I don't remember ) having done so :(
I have reported it at least twice, with several months in between. It had been reported numerous times by others and has been reported numerous times since :/
I've already apologized and posted a patch asking for confirmation that it works to this list (sorry, should have posted it to -patches, but it was after 2am).
On a related note, the libtool I inherited already has 5 patches applied to it. I would like to eventually ship a "clean" libtool, and would love to hear back on what the status of these patches are. From the previous maintainer: > libtool-1.4-nonneg.patch
Afaik this patch is not strictly necessary, but doesn't do any harm either. [it changes some shell script in libtool to detect non-negative numbers better]
For some reason currently we check for non-negative 1-3 digit numbers, 4 digits are reported as negative. Whee. Post this to patches and I'll apply it.
> libtool-1.5-libtool.m4-x86_64.patch
I guess this should go upstream if it is not in cvs stable branch already. It trivial but obviously needed to support hammer/ia32e.
This too.
> libtool-1.4.2-multilib.patch
This patch is needed for multilib support. It has been sent upstream but basically rejected in its current form as being too Red Hat specific. [Is this still the case? Is there an alternate solution for this problem, or is .multilib still the only one?]
Do you have a url for the thread?
> libtool-1.4.2-demo.patch (on x86_64 s390 s390x)
Yes, this is just to disable several nopic tests: afaicr nopic is meaningless on those archs bicbw... ie a patch should really go upstream to skip those tests on those archs I guess.
Well, if you can be bothered to make a real patch, we might look at it. A patch that simply removes tests from the Makefile.am is not a good thing[tm] :).
> libtool-1.5-testfailure.patch
This was contributed by Owen: would probably be worth trying to push it upstream - though I'm not entirely clear why/if it is needed.
I can not understand the point of this one. Perhaps Owen can explain why it is needed.
Peter -- Peter O'Gorman - http://www.pogma.com
_______________________________________________ Libtool mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
