Re: Libtool release plan (was: Libtool apparantly removing path parameters on FreeBSD)

[Olly Betts]

On 2006-05-10, Ralf Wildenhues <address@hidden> wrote:
> * Olly Betts wrote on Wed, May 10, 2006 at 04:38:08PM CEST:
>> Is there likely to be a 1.5.24 release soon?
>
> Oh dear.  Don't ask about my original plans.  They were something like
> this: have Autoconf-2.60 in March, then Libtool-1.5.24 soon after that,
> then Libtool-2.0 soon after that.  :-/

Don't worry, I understand how things don't always work out!

> I know Libtool-1.5.24 is important to get out, due to the regressions I
> put in 1.5.22.  And it will be my primary focus once Autoconf-2.60 is
> done.  However, there are some other systems that need fixes, HP-UX
> being one of them;

HP-UX is looking good for me with this patch:

http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gnu.libtool.general/7076/focus=7083

Though perhaps there are also problems with features I don't make use
of.

> The good thing being that I expect Autoconf-2.60 to be done this month.

Are the autoconf and libtool trees in a sufficiently stable state that
it would be useful for me to try building with them to shake out
problems and help make the upcoming releases better?  If so, what's
best to use for autoconf - CVS HEAD or the autoconf 2.69c tarball?

I have a fairly broad collection of automated test builds, and I've just
made a release so it wouldn't be disruptive to switch the autobuilding
to use non-release versions of autoconf and libtool:

http://www.oligarchy.co.uk/tinderbox/xapian/status.html

> The two regressions:
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libtool-patches/2006-03/msg00007.html
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libtool-patches/2006-03/msg00006.html
>
> Another important patch (for DragonFly):
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libtool-patches/2006-03/msg00027.html

Thanks, I'm now using these, apart from the ltdl one as we don't use
ltdl.

>> and that it's been longer since 1.5.22 than between other
>> recent releases, so I was wondering if a release was imminent.
>
> Well, the longer delay has been due to me working primarily on Autoconf,
> and few people working on Libtool meanwhile.  I know this isn't good,
> and to some extent it may not have been a good idea in hindsight, but
> OTOH Autoconf users have been waiting almost 3 years for a new release,
> and some pretty desperately.

And of course most libtool users are also autoconf users.

Cheers,
    Olly