Re: Libtool 2.4.3 release

[Arnout Vandecappelle]

On 20/03/14 06:07, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
> 
> On Mar 20, 2014, at 5:37 AM, Arnout Vandecappelle
>  > wrote:
> 
>> [Please keep me in CC, I'm not on the list]
>>
>> Dear libtool maintainers,
>>
>> Is there a possibility for a new libtool release in the foreseeable future?
> 
> Hi Arnout,
> 
> Yes, absolutely. In fact there are only 2 things ahead of it on my TODO list:
> 
>   1. Figure out why a4ffcdb5e is a regression for test 57
>   2. fix test 120 race condition
> 
> Unfortunately, Libtool is a complex beast, and we are woefully
> undermanned here.

 Complex beast indeed... Which is another reason why we prefer not to
carry patches.

> While everything rests on my shoulders, it will be at least another month
> before I can start work (I'm in the process of emigrating and all that
> entails).
> 
> Patches for those 2 items, or any other as yet unknown issues with git
> master (or http://vaughan.pe/libtool/libtool-2.4.2.458.tar.gz if a
> bootstrapped tarball is easier to work with) are extremely welcome, and
> could lead to an immediate release...

 Unfortunately, none of the buildroot maintainers seem up to the
challenge of attacking ltmain...  We've had issues that are probably best
solved within libtool but where we resort to other workarounds to keep
things simple.

> 
> Most recent test logs here:
> 
>   http://vaughan.pe/libtool/libtool-2.4.2.458.logs/
> 
>> In buildroot, we build all autotools (including libtool) as part of the
>> cross-compilation process. We recently had to add a libtool patch for
>> MIPS n64 support, which is annoying because it means we have to re-run
>> automake etc. to update the autools-generated scripts in libtool.
> 
> Did you patch just config.guess/config.sub and pass that back upstream?
> That is a prerequisite for arriving in the next release.  Otherwise if
> you patched Libtool files, are your changes in upstream already?

 Yes, it's an upstream patch that we back-ported.

> 
>> However, our normal autotools support doesn't work because that creates a
>> circular dependency. So we have to add a few hacks in the libtool build
>> steps to make things work.
>>
>> A release of libtool would help a lot because then we don't need to
>> carry patches and we don't need to generate configure etc.
>>
>> Thank you,
>> Regards,
>> Arnout
>> -- 
>> Arnout Vandecappelle  arnout dot vandecappelle at essensium dot com
> 
> Cheers,
> -- 
> Gary V. Vaughan (gary AT gnu DOT org)

-- 
Arnout Vandecappelle  arnout at mind be
Senior Embedded Software Architect+32-16-286500
Essensium/Mindhttp://www.mind.be
G.Geenslaan 9, 3001 Leuven, Belgium   BE 872 984 063 RPR Leuven
LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/arnoutvandecappelle
GPG fingerprint:  7CB5 E4CC 6C2E EFD4 6E3D A754 F963 ECAB 2450 2F1F

___
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool

Re: Libtool 2.4.3 release

[Richard Purdie]

On Thu, 2014-03-20 at 18:07 +1300, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
> On Mar 20, 2014, at 5:37 AM, Arnout Vandecappelle
>  wrote:
> > [Please keep me in CC, I'm not on the list]
> > Dear libtool maintainers,
>>
> > Is there a possibility for a new libtool release in the foreseeable
> > future?
>
> Yes, absolutely. In fact there are only 2 things ahead of it on my
> TODO list:
>
>   1. Figure out why a4ffcdb5e is a regression for test 57
>   2. fix test 120 race condition
>
> Unfortunately, Libtool is a complex beast, and we are woefully
> undermanned here.
> While everything rests on my shoulders, it will be at least another
> month before I can start work (I'm in the process of emigrating and
> all that entails).
>
> Patches for those 2 items, or any other as yet unknown issues with git
> master (or http://vaughan.pe/libtool/libtool-2.4.2.458.tar.gz if a
> bootstrapped tarball is easier to work with) are extremely welcome,
> and could lead to an immediate release...

FWIW I'm another build system maintainer who sees email here. We
currently have 12 patches against libtool:

http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/poky/tree/meta/recipes-devtools/libtool/libtool

Some of these are inappropriate for upstream, one or two may have been
merged into libtool, some others may highlight issues, particularly
around the sysroot support.

Unfortunately whilst I have the best intentions (and am still on the
list), I haven't found the time to look into the issues as yet and
figure out if we could get some into a form that they'd be accepted
upstream.

Cheers,

Richard




___
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool