[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: branch-2-0 vs CVS HEAD

From: Albert Chin
Subject: Re: branch-2-0 vs CVS HEAD
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 21:41:58 -0500
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.6i

On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 07:54:59PM +0100, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
> [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.
> >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
> >- ?
> The showstopper for this plan is that libtool is holding up the next
> release of all the other autotools[1], 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 
> release.

libtool-2.0 should not rely on newer autoconf/automake. People simply
won't adopt it. RHEL 4 ships with autoconf-2.59 and automake-1.9.2.
I'm not against requiring the latest, as of now, autoconf/automake,
but relying on autoconf-2.60 and automake-1.10 seems way too

albert chin (address@hidden)

reply via email to

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