[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: branch-2-0 vs CVS HEAD
Re: branch-2-0 vs CVS HEAD
Mon, 22 Aug 2005 21:32:22 +0200
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 08:54:59PM CEST:
> [Moved to libtool list]
> 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 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:
> The showstopper for this plan is that libtool is holding up the next
> release of all the other autotools, 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
I have not understood the exact nature of the dependencies, I guess.
> branch-2-0 doesn't need to be perfect before we release it -- as long
> as it has no known regressions, and good backwards compatibility, then
> we can work out the wrinkles in patch releases.
The problem is that CVS HEAD still *has* regressions:
- enabling/disabling static/shared libs is broken
- doing so for individual libs in the package is broken
(when using the 1.5.x macro names)
(maybe actually committing your AU_ALIAS patch 2005-05-07 would help?)
Furthermore, it has at least this serious bug in its new functionality:
- using libltdl but not as subpackage does not work as advertised
(this bug is in part a documentation bug -- LTDL_INIT needs to be
suitably documented -- but also the AC_CONFIG_SUBDIRS call from
LT_WITH_LTDL needs to be made configurable)
Then there are a bunch of smaller, mostly system-dependent issues, which
I personally would be happy with working on past a release.
branch-2-0 has these regressions as well (plus currently a couple more).
> I'm genuinely optimistic that we can release 1.9h within 2 weeks,
> possibly less. And maybe 2.0 can follow the week after if we've done
> a good job of testing.
Then there is one thing I don't understand: How can you get 2.0 to work
with Autoconf-2.59 and Automake-1.9.6, if that isn't possible with CVS
HEAD? Either I'm misunderstanding, or you'll just have to find a new
set of fixes for branch-2-0 than for CVS HEAD, because those all rely on
>  Autoconf-2.60 needs M4-2.0 needs Libtool-2.0
Why does Autoconf-2.60 need M4-2.0, BTW?
> (ISTR that Automake-1.10 is waiting on something here too, but I can't
> find a record of it in the archives).
I see this whole issue as another reason to push for regular point
releases, and general releases more often. I like the fact that
Automake has had the former up to now.
Re: branch-2-0 vs CVS HEAD, Noah Misch, 2005/08/22
Re: branch-2-0 vs CVS HEAD, Albert Chin, 2005/08/22