libtool release schedule [WAS: [PATCH] GNU/KNetBSD support]

[Gary V. Vaughan]

Hi Robert,

Robert Millan wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 01:22:42PM +0100, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
>
> > Gotta reinstate my shell account at the FSF, synchronize libltdl changes 
> > I've made for m4, add a feature to diagnose version mismatch between 
> > libtool.m4 and ltmain.sh, take advantage of aclocal-1.8's m4_include 
> > feature -- this will
> > reduce the distribution tarball size by 20-40% by my estimation.
>
>
> Is there anything I can do to help?

Absolutely!  Pick one of the tasks I've mentioned and send us a patch that 
implements it.  If you need to exchange paperwork with the FSF, I can send you 
details of what to do... I can still accept 2 or 3 small (<10 lines of code) 
patches from you even if the FSF doesn't have your paperwork.

I have the aclocal-1.8 patch waiting to apply, as soon as the problem with 
AC_CONFIG_AUX_DIR I raised at address@hidden is resolved.  To complete 
automake 1.8 integration, we still need libtoolize to work more like autopoint 
(from gettext) and install libtool.m4 and/or ltdl.m4 into $ac_aux_dir.

The other 2 (+ the bonus patch I mentioned) are still wide open.

> > Unless the Automake team release 1.8 very soon, I'd hope to have it done 
> > well inside a month behind the Automake release, with a beta a week or two 
> > before that.
> > [...]
>
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 04:50:25PM +0200, Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote:
>
> > Automake 1.8 itself cannot be released before Autoconf 2.58.
> > Please take the queue :)  Aside from this dependency, I hope
> > we can have the first 1.8 beta (1.7b) within a month.
>
>
> Uhm.. that makes it at least two months. Can't you release branch-1-5 in its
> current state (that is, when you can access gnuftp again) and then work on the
> new features for 1.6?

I'd rather polish 1.6.  But if 1.6 is essentially done (i.e branched in CVS 
and 1.5b released to alpha.gnu.org), I'd be prepared to roll a 1.5.1 release 
if we are simply waiting on automake 1.8.

> Even if the improvements in branch-1-5 are not worthy of a new release, adding
> support for two new systems should IMHO help justifiing it, specialy if they
> are GNU-based systems.

Unfortunately the full release process is a fairly time consuming process, so 
I don't want to spend an evening rolling 1.5.1 if 1.6 is only a month behind 
if I have other stuff to work on.   But I do take your point.

Cheers,
        Gary.
--
  ())_.  Gary V. Vaughan    gary@(lilith.warpmail.net|gnu.org)
  ( '/   Research Scientist http://www.oranda.demon.co.uk       ,_())____
  / )=   GNU Hacker         http://www.gnu.org/software/libtool  \'      `&
`(_~)_   Tech' Author       http://sources.redhat.com/autobook   =`---d__/