[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: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 08:29:20 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.4.1i

Hi Gary,

* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Sun, Aug 28, 2005 at 11:56:31PM CEST:
> On 22 Aug 2005, at 21:00, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
> >Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> >>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)
> >
> >Hmm... I'll look into this when --patch-23 is resolved.
> This concern was just because cvs diff hadn't picked up all of -- 
> patch-23 right?  Everything seems to work fine here...


> Regardless, LTDL_INIT is not documented at the moment, and I'm not
> sure we want to explicitly support use of libltdl except as a
> subpackage.   Although it has been possible to do so for quite some
> time (if only because  libtool itself has done so on and off over the
> last few years), we have never really *designed* an interface for it.
> Post-2.0, we can always firm up a long term interface, document it and
> *then* make a commitment to support that interface in the future.

I don't understand this paragraph at all.  From what I could gather,
this was one of *the* new features to be advertised for the next stable
version.  When Bob reported several times that it was nonfunctional,
never was there a reply of yours stating this wasn't intended feature.

While I can see you backing up because you want to move closer to this
release, I cannot understand how you can argue now that this was not a
feature users should be able to profit from.


reply via email to

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