[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: branch-2-0 vs CVS HEAD

From: Gary V. Vaughan
Subject: Re: branch-2-0 vs CVS HEAD
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 13:02:00 +0100

Hallo Ralf,

On 29 Aug 2005, at 12:43, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Hi Gary,

private mail on purpose?

Nup, my MUA is playing silly buggers. :-( Might go back to webmail until
I've had chance to configure Thunderbird the way it's behaving atm! Grr.

[Quoting everything for the sake of readers on the list.]

* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 12:38:50PM CEST:
On 29 Aug 2005, at 07:29, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Sun, Aug 28, 2005 at 11:56:31PM CEST:
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
*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

If I have touted this as a feature, I've forgotten.  Mea culpa.

Actually, I don't /know/ whether you did that, or I just always
understood wrongly.  At least it seems Bob misunderstood then, too.

Good point.

 When Bob reported several times that it was nonfunctional,
never was there a reply of yours stating this wasn't intended feature.

It certainly ought to work, because libtool itself is using it.

Libtool is not using LT_WITH_LTDL in $top_srcdir/
But client packages need to have the additional configure switches and
logic which is only triggered by LT_WITH_LTDL.

If OTOH you add LT_WITH_LTDL to, at least the
AC_CONFIG_SUBDIRS at its end breaks libltdl-as-non-subpackage.

Was this bug description halfway understandable?

Yep.  Thanks.

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.

I am backing up because I want to release 2.0 asap.  On reflection, I
can't see any problem with supporting the current API for the
forseeable  future.  I'll work on a doc patch today.

Please keep the above in mind.  It would be very cool if this could be
made to work.


Gary V. Vaughan ())_. gary@ {,},address@hidden
Research Scientist   ( '/
GNU Hacker           / )={libtool,m4}
Technical Author   `(_~)_

Attachment: PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

reply via email to

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