On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 08:11:48AM +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > * 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. > > ... > > 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.
Seems fine to me. -- albert chin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) _______________________________________________ http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
