[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

branch-2-0 vs CVS HEAD (was: Libtool: Microsoft dumpbin as name lister)

From: Ralf Wildenhues
Subject: branch-2-0 vs CVS HEAD (was: Libtool: Microsoft dumpbin as name lister)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 19:24:51 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.4.1i

Hi Peter,

* Peter Ekberg wrote on Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 02:10:14PM CEST:
> Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > * Peter Ekberg wrote on Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 02:36:47PM CEST:
> >
> > | +    lt_cv_sys_global_symbol_pipe="$SED -n -e '/ UNDEF 
> > [^|]*()/d; / 00* UNDEF /d;
> > 
> > I think you are missing a pair of brackets here:         ^^^ 
> >   [[^|]]
> Good eyes! I'm almost certain I had that, at least at some point.
> Must have gone missing in some manual backport from a working
> version of

The long waits during `bootstrap' are well spent reading.

> Thanks for (all) your review(s)!

Well, sure.  I'd also like to add (to Bob's statement) that I believe
you do important work.  I'm sorry I did not get to any of your other
patches this weekend.

> Applied, can I also apply to branch-2-0?

Hmm.  I'm all for fixing all known issues in HEAD first.  When we have
finally fixed installation and ltdl issues in CVS HEAD, and you have
finally installed all of your MSVC work, then:

- backporting everything will still be a lot of work,
- testing the backports will be even more work, plus nobody will
  actually do it, or it won't be exposed, because:
- CVS HEAD is IMNSHO actually much more tested than branch-2-0 ATM,
  for one because it has a much larger set of tests, and for another
  because I test several systems regularly,
- backporting all of the test suite would be even more work.  :-/

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.
Now I estimate that, for us combined, it might save us a man month
(whoohoo, maybe even a mythical one :) or more.

This would be a strong argument to do it, IMVHO.

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:
- LTLIBOBJS in subdirs
- ?

Of course the new test suite would even be better with the enhancements
of CVS Autoconf.  But oh well.  We could release it bootstrapped with
CVS versions of autotools.  I believe users of libltdl that
- either build it as subpackage,
- or as integrated package but with, 
still won't be hurt.  But we'd need to test that as well.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]