* Albert Chin wrote on Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 04:41:58AM CEST: > On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 07:54:59PM +0100, Gary V. Vaughan wrote: > > 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 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. > > libtool-2.0 should not rely on newer autoconf/automake. People simply > won't adopt it. RHEL 4 ships with autoconf-2.59 and automake-1.9.2. > I'm not against requiring the latest, as of now, autoconf/automake, > but relying on autoconf-2.60 and automake-1.10 seems way too > aggressive. Good argument. But the two questions are almost orthogonal: Practically speaking, if the point is that branch-2-0 is to receive all backported regression fixes HEAD sees now, and then revert to subpackage libltdl so that it works with released autotools -- which branch-2-0 doesn't do now, right? -- then it's *still* a lot less work to fork the release right off of current CVS HEAD after that has been fixed, and it gives us a lot better test coverage. So my point is: get HEAD stable now, then branch off and make 2.59/1.9.6 compatible there. Then bootstrap the release with the couple of naughty system-dependent fixes we know of in those autotools versions. Am I missing anything? Cheers, Ralf _______________________________________________ http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
