[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: branch-2-0 vs CVS HEAD

From: Ralf Wildenhues
Subject: Re: branch-2-0 vs CVS HEAD
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 08:11:48 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.4.1i

* Albert Chin wrote on Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 04:41:58AM CEST:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 07:54:59PM +0100, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
> > 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 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
> aggressive.

Good argument.  But the two questions are almost orthogonal:

Practically speaking, if the point is that branch-2-0 is to receive all
backported regression fixes HEAD sees now, and then revert to subpackage
libltdl so that it works with released autotools -- which branch-2-0
doesn't do now, right? -- then it's *still* a lot less work to fork the
release right off of current CVS HEAD after that has been fixed, and it
gives us a lot better test coverage.

So my point is: get HEAD stable now, then branch off and make 2.59/1.9.6
compatible there.  Then bootstrap the release with the couple of naughty
system-dependent fixes we know of in those autotools versions.

Am I missing anything?


reply via email to

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