On Thu, 7 Nov 2002, Charles Wilson wrote:
> Since autoconf (>= 2.56) will only work on systems whose shells support
> shell functions, and libtool requires autoconf, then libtool will only
> work on those same systems. Which means shell functions are available
> and we *can* use them. Whether we
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
"Shall libtool-1.5 require autoconf-2.56?"
I don't see that introducing shell functions into libtool has any
bearing on the version of autoconf that libtool requires.
The argument you pose is political rather than technical.
Yes. The decision itself is a political
On Thu, 7 Nov 2002, Charles Wilson wrote:
> When will libtool-1.5 be released? Before or after ac-2.56? (given
> that ac-2.55 will be released next week).
>
> Assuming that the autoconf people have not repudiated their plan to
> integrate shell functions starting in 2.56, then the decision to us
On the other hand, autoconf's most recent release sez (as ADL pointed
out before I finished composing this message):
** Plans for 2.56
...
- shell functions
Shell functions will gradually be introduced, probably starting with
Autotest. If yo
My experience with developing software is that unless software has
been tested, it is unlikely to actually work. While we may pretend
that libtool supports 20 year old systems, the reality is that no one
is testing to verify that libtool can actually execute on these
systems. Exceedingly few of t
"Boehne, Robert" wrote:
>
>Part 1.1Type: Plain Text (text/plain)
> Jan,
>
> That actually brings up a big issue. I *assumed* that the win32 patches
> using shell functions that were checked in would only have shell functions
> when running under windows. I later saw this was not the case.
Boehne, Robert wrote:
and any WIN32 specific code can be only
included
when WIN32 is detected at run time
(via ". some_here_document_containing_win32_shellfuncs")
Until all the Autotool maintainers decide to abandon support for
non-shell function
bourne shells we need to support them as well.
