Hi Gary, * Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 08:54:59PM CEST: > [Moved to libtool list]
Thanks. > Ralf Wildenhues wrote on libtool-patches: > >I kept quiet a while ago when Bob first suggested ditching the CVS > >branch-2-0 and releasing CVS HEAD as 2.0 after a bit of stabilization. > >The only problem is: I don't know how we can get CVS HEAD to work fine > >with released Autoconf/Automake versions. ATM I'm not even sure which > >issues there are: > The showstopper for this plan is that libtool is holding up the next > release of all the other autotools[1], so we can't release HEAD as is > without causing headaches for everyone else, because it relies on > unreleased versions of the tools that are waiting for another libtool > release. I have not understood the exact nature of the dependencies, I guess. > branch-2-0 doesn't need to be perfect before we release it -- as long > as it has no known regressions, and good backwards compatibility, then > we can work out the wrinkles in patch releases. The problem is that CVS HEAD still *has* regressions: - enabling/disabling static/shared libs is broken - doing so for individual libs in the package is broken (when using the 1.5.x macro names) (maybe actually committing your AU_ALIAS patch 2005-05-07 would help?) Furthermore, it has at least this serious bug in its new functionality: - using libltdl but not as subpackage does not work as advertised (this bug is in part a documentation bug -- LTDL_INIT needs to be suitably documented -- but also the AC_CONFIG_SUBDIRS call from LT_WITH_LTDL needs to be made configurable) Then there are a bunch of smaller, mostly system-dependent issues, which I personally would be happy with working on past a release. branch-2-0 has these regressions as well (plus currently a couple more). > I'm genuinely optimistic that we can release 1.9h within 2 weeks, > possibly less. And maybe 2.0 can follow the week after if we've done > a good job of testing. Then there is one thing I don't understand: How can you get 2.0 to work with Autoconf-2.59 and Automake-1.9.6, if that isn't possible with CVS HEAD? Either I'm misunderstanding, or you'll just have to find a new set of fixes for branch-2-0 than for CVS HEAD, because those all rely on newer Autoconf/Automake. > [1] Autoconf-2.60 needs M4-2.0 needs Libtool-2.0 Why does Autoconf-2.60 need M4-2.0, BTW? > (ISTR that Automake-1.10 is waiting on something here too, but I can't > find a record of it in the archives). I see this whole issue as another reason to push for regular point releases, and general releases more often. I like the fact that Automake has had the former up to now. Cheers, Ralf _______________________________________________ http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
