Re: libtool-2.0 release
Hi Gary, * Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 01:06:40PM CET: Ralf Wildenhues wrote: - Makefile.am rules somewhere use GNU make 3.80 features. I have encountered many difficulties preventing autotools reruns on other systems, and am quite fed up with hunting these down. :-( I haven't tripped over those yet. Hehe. This turned out to possibly have been - one system with a wrong clock, and - another system (w32) with lower time stamp resolution (moving file _from_ there elsewhere). Very good. I'm moving the regression to wontfix, as we can probably just ignore this unless somebody stumbles over it again. :-) Cheers, Ralf ___ http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
Re: libtool-2.0 release
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 03:43:11PM CET: [Is the personal Cc: okay? The list lag is so long that I've gotten into the habit of Cc:ing you back in so you don't have to wait half a day to get this.] Yes, surely. There was one point in time where I fixed my gnu.org subscriptions to do what I want for my mail setup, and since then I could stop bothering about this for mails sent to me. List lag is interesting though: it can vary between several hours and less than a minute within the time frame of 12 hours. I am at a loss how to explain this, maybe it's fast when the US-based spammers go to sleep. ;- It means that LT_WITH_LTDL in configure.ac that mentions neither LTDL_CONVENIENCE nor LTDL_INSTALLABLE doesn't build libltdl at all. I have a start to a fix for this. Well, so is that really a bug? I originally wrote LT_WITH_LTDL as a convenience wrapper for AC_LIB_LTDL in CVS M4, and realised that it was useful enough to almost all clients of libltdl that it should probably belong in the Libtool distribution... There is definitely a documentation bug (added to RoadMap) that it is still undocumented. It's not LT_WITH_LTDL that is undocumented. LTDL_INIT is. The real question then is whether LT_WITH_LTDL alone should be equivalent to LTDL_CONVENIENCE plus LTDL_INIT (overridable with LTDL_INSTALLABLE) or whether it should be *in addition* to all that. Right. I'm leaning toward the former, but either way the current situation of being like LTDL_INIT plus --with-ltdl processing is counter-intuitive. I'll post a documentation patch to help us define the semantics clearly, and then fix the code to implement what we decide upon. Good. - I know about a couple more tweaks necessary for HEAD libtoolize and Bob has a couple of failures I (or somebody else) need to track down. Agreed. If you put them on the RoadMap, I might get to them before you. Well, this comment of Bob completely mystifies me: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gnu.libtool.patches/6582 I believe in that thread there were more issues mentioned. Can you transcribe them to the RoadMap once we've got clarification on the issue from Bob please? OK. I'll ask him to test again after patch-6 is in (or test myself). Ahh, and there was another one: the breakage on need_lib_prefix systems. I think we did not mark it release-blocking, but I still would like to test Pierre's patch extensively and use it if it turns out good: otherwise libltdl will be completely useless on e.g. BeOS. Okay. Is that a long standing bug, or a regression? Please mark the RoadMap accordingly :-) Well, both. Apparently dlpreloading has never worked on need_lib_prefix systems, so that is long-standing. Now that libltdl requires working dlpreloading, it fails to work completely, while in 1.5.x it at least worked in some cases. From a user POV, that's a regression, from a Libtool developer POV it's long-standing. ;-) Just discovered yet another in my patch queue (needs another round of testing before I post): make installcheck currently always fails in trees that used 'libtoolize --ltdl' in some modes. (Added to RoadMap). OK. Cheers, Ralf
Re: libtool-2.0 release
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Hi Gary,
Hallo Ralf!
Gary V. Vaughan writes:
Now is the time to branch! Either a feature branch for developing the
per-deplib feature for merging after 2.0, or else a 2.0 branch that we
can keep stable.
No way, without me. I outright refuse to maintain another branch.
It's insane. It makes more work for us and causes the resulting code
to receive less outside testers per branch.
Agreed. My aim is to not churn the code that will be released any more
than necessary, and I suggested branching to give you somewhere to commit
your patch without the code churn... since you're happy to maintain your
patch outside of CVS for a while, I concur that branching is way more
work than necessary.
However, I have absolutely no problem with delaying the application of
the per-deplibs-flags patch to shortly after 2.0.0 or 2.0.2. Although
we should still commit both the `-static' hardcoding fix and the
static.at test patch (the latter is written so that it works also
without the per-deplibs-flags patch; it needs only -static-libtool-libs).
Agreed. The more tests we commit, the better. I think adding tests that
will fail due to known bugs in the release is okay too... we just mark
them XFAIL until the known bug is fixed after the release.
According to: http://tkd.kicks-ass.net/GnuLibtoolProject/RoadMap, the
three remaining release blockers for 2.0 are:
The list is outdated.
Bummer :-(
* ! libtool.m4 macro ordering/requirement audit. pending
This is as good as done. Forget about it. I have a list of remaining
issues (not with me right now), and I will get to it eventually, but am
pretty sure those issues are not important to many users.
Okay, moved to 'fixed'.
* ! LT_WITH_LTDL should build libltdl by default; currently
nothing happens unless LTDL_CONVENIENCE or LTDL_INSTALLABLE
is also given.
I don't even know what this means. I'd guess we should ignore it?
It means that LT_WITH_LTDL in configure.ac that mentions neither
LTDL_CONVENIENCE nor LTDL_INSTALLABLE doesn't build libltdl at all.
I have a start to a fix for this.
* ! fix potential denial of service with compilers that do not
understand -c -o.
* not very likely to happen
I don't mind postponing that to after 2.0, iff that is _not_ responsible
for bugs like this one: http://bugs.debian.org/350989 . I have replied
there, BTW.
Okay. I'll leave it on the list as is until you determine whether to
postpone or not.
HOWEVER.
- The regressions that happened in 1.5.22 need to be fixed in 2.0,
Agreed.
IMHO (most notably the OpenBSD failure; and good would be the
application of the `-static-libtool-libs' patch for users that
need the other `-static' semantics; together with the hardlinking
regression that I also found for `-static')
I agree that fixing regressions is necessary. I'm not sure that we
need to delay the release for new features... Can you amend the RoadMap
to reflect your thinking on this please?
.
- And my outstanding patch-6 needs to be split up and applied.
It fixes most but not all remaining issues with HEAD libtoolize.
Agreed.
- I know about a couple more tweaks necessary for HEAD libtoolize
and Bob has a couple of failures I (or somebody else) need to track
down.
Agreed. If you put them on the RoadMap, I might get to them before you.
- AC_PROG_SED may not be AC_DEFUNed (for aclocal 1.6?), and
LT_AC_PROG_SED should be catered for.
D'oh! I have a patch for this already :-/ I'll post it presently.
- Makefile.am rules somewhere use GNU make 3.80 features. I have
encountered many difficulties preventing autotools reruns on other
systems, and am quite fed up with hunting these down.
:-( I haven't tripped over those yet.
- I have a pending Solaris/whole_archive_flag_spec patch, fixing a
regression, and to make libtool work on Solaris 10.
Cool! Please add an entry to the RoadMap.
So here are the action points, initialed where I plan to take them
pending agreement from (most of) you guys.
1. strike the macro ordering audit from the release blocker list. GVV
Done.
2. fix LTDL_{CONVENIENCE,INSTALLABLE} bug on CVS HEAD. GVV
OK. Whatever that may be. You webpage does not seem accessible at the
moment.
Yeah, my ISP seems to give me 10 min outages once or twice a week... or else
my new modem takes that long to notice the dropped connection from the
ISP end and redial. Sorry about that :-(
3. make a per-deblib-branch for these changes.
Do not make a branch. Pretty please.
Strongly agreed!
4. evaluate whether -c -o DoS is a release blocker too.
4a. fix it if it is
4b. strike it from the blocker list if it isn't
See above. I have a half-baked fix lying around somewhere, but will
post only after many tests.
Okay. But please let us know whether you're happy to postpone until
post 2.0 when you can. :-)
5. test like crazy. and fix any
Re: libtool-2.0 release
Hi Gary,
Gary V. Vaughan writes:
Is this patch really necessary for 2.0?
No.
I think that introducing so
much code churn in to libtool at this stage is going to bring yet more
release delays. Surely the feature is useful and desireable, but I
really *really* want to avoid more delays for 2.0.
OK.
Now is the time to branch! Either a feature branch for developing the
per-deplib feature for merging after 2.0, or else a 2.0 branch that we
can keep stable.
No way, without me. I outright refuse to maintain another branch.
It's insane. It makes more work for us and causes the resulting code
to receive less outside testers per branch.
However, I have absolutely no problem with delaying the application of
the per-deplibs-flags patch to shortly after 2.0.0 or 2.0.2. Although
we should still commit both the `-static' hardcoding fix and the
static.at test patch (the latter is written so that it works also
without the per-deplibs-flags patch; it needs only -static-libtool-libs).
My preference is to make a feature branch now, and not branch for 2.0
at least until the release blockers are resolved, so that we can commit
any bugfixes we discover during testing just once (we went through the
mess of porting to three branches during the last branch-2-0 debacle,
and I don't want to do that again!).
Right. So we put this off, and don't apply it anywhere right now.
According to: http://tkd.kicks-ass.net/GnuLibtoolProject/RoadMap, the
three remaining release blockers for 2.0 are:
The list is outdated.
* ! libtool.m4 macro ordering/requirement audit. pending
This is as good as done. Forget about it. I have a list of remaining
issues (not with me right now), and I will get to it eventually, but am
pretty sure those issues are not important to many users.
* ! LT_WITH_LTDL should build libltdl by default; currently
nothing happens unless LTDL_CONVENIENCE or LTDL_INSTALLABLE
is also given.
I don't even know what this means. I'd guess we should ignore it?
* ! fix potential denial of service with compilers that do not
understand -c -o.
* not very likely to happen
I don't mind postponing that to after 2.0, iff that is _not_ responsible
for bugs like this one: http://bugs.debian.org/350989 . I have replied
there, BTW.
HOWEVER.
- The regressions that happened in 1.5.22 need to be fixed in 2.0, IMHO
(most notably the OpenBSD failure; and good would be the
application of the `-static-libtool-libs' patch for users that
need the other `-static' semantics; together with the hardlinking
regression that I also found for `-static').
- And my outstanding patch-6 needs to be split up and applied.
It fixes most but not all remaining issues with HEAD libtoolize.
- I know about a couple more tweaks necessary for HEAD libtoolize
and Bob has a couple of failures I (or somebody else) need to track
down.
- AC_PROG_SED may not be AC_DEFUNed (for aclocal 1.6?), and
LT_AC_PROG_SED should be catered for.
- Makefile.am rules somewhere use GNU make 3.80 features. I have
encountered many difficulties preventing autotools reruns on other
systems, and am quite fed up with hunting these down.
- I have a pending Solaris/whole_archive_flag_spec patch, fixing a
regression, and to make libtool work on Solaris 10.
So here are the action points, initialed where I plan to take them
pending agreement from (most of) you guys.
1. strike the macro ordering audit from the release blocker list. GVV
2. fix LTDL_{CONVENIENCE,INSTALLABLE} bug on CVS HEAD. GVV
OK. Whatever that may be. You webpage does not seem accessible at the
moment.
3. make a per-deblib-branch for these changes.
Do not make a branch. Pretty please.
4. evaluate whether -c -o DoS is a release blocker too.
4a. fix it if it is
4b. strike it from the blocker list if it isn't
See above. I have a half-baked fix lying around somewhere, but will
post only after many tests.
5. test like crazy. and fix any platform issues uncovered GVV
If I haven't made it clear yet: that is what I've *really* been doing.
The static test was the aim, and the bulk of the work, the per-deplibs
flags and the `-static' hardcoding fix were the fallout.
And I have several more tests which I would like to write or have
already started. For example: I would like comprehensive exposure of -L
path issues in order to fix the OpenBSD link `-L path order issue' right,
so that it does not turn into another regression on another system.
I know you would rather release. There is a trade off: better test
exposure vs. release delay. My being fed up with working on bootstrap
and similar issues that were mostly introduced by the great code
reorganizations, and also there being very few test suite contributors
and people working on bug reports, has led me to work on the former.
Libtool will only get consistently better with a testsuite that exposes
much more issues. And if you then
Re: libtool-2.0 release
Hi Gary,
Gary V. Vaughan writes:
Is this patch really necessary for 2.0?
No.
I think that introducing so
much code churn in to libtool at this stage is going to bring yet more
release delays. Surely the feature is useful and desireable, but I
really *really* want to avoid more delays for 2.0.
OK.
Now is the time to branch! Either a feature branch for developing the
per-deplib feature for merging after 2.0, or else a 2.0 branch that we
can keep stable.
No way, without me. I outright refuse to maintain another branch.
It's insane. It makes more work for us and causes the resulting code
to receive less outside testers per branch.
However, I have absolutely no problem with delaying the application of
the per-deplibs-flags patch to shortly after 2.0.0 or 2.0.2. Although
we should still commit both the `-static' hardcoding fix and the
static.at test patch (the latter is written so that it works also
without the per-deplibs-flags patch; it needs only -static-libtool-libs).
My preference is to make a feature branch now, and not branch for 2.0
at least until the release blockers are resolved, so that we can commit
any bugfixes we discover during testing just once (we went through the
mess of porting to three branches during the last branch-2-0 debacle,
and I don't want to do that again!).
Right. So we put this off, and don't apply it anywhere right now.
According to: http://tkd.kicks-ass.net/GnuLibtoolProject/RoadMap, the
three remaining release blockers for 2.0 are:
The list is outdated.
* ! libtool.m4 macro ordering/requirement audit. pending
This is as good as done. Forget about it. I have a list of remaining
issues (not with me right now), and I will get to it eventually, but am
pretty sure those issues are not important to many users.
* ! LT_WITH_LTDL should build libltdl by default; currently
nothing happens unless LTDL_CONVENIENCE or LTDL_INSTALLABLE
is also given.
I don't even know what this means. I'd guess we should ignore it?
* ! fix potential denial of service with compilers that do not
understand -c -o.
* not very likely to happen
I don't mind postponing that to after 2.0, iff that is _not_ responsible
for bugs like this one: http://bugs.debian.org/350989 . I have replied
there, BTW.
HOWEVER.
- The regressions that happened in 1.5.22 need to be fixed in 2.0, IMHO
(most notably the OpenBSD failure; and good would be the
application of the `-static-libtool-libs' patch for users that
need the other `-static' semantics; together with the hardlinking
regression that I also found for `-static').
- And my outstanding patch-6 needs to be split up and applied.
It fixes most but not all remaining issues with HEAD libtoolize.
- I know about a couple more tweaks necessary for HEAD libtoolize
and Bob has a couple of failures I (or somebody else) need to track
down.
- AC_PROG_SED may not be AC_DEFUNed (for aclocal 1.6?), and
LT_AC_PROG_SED should be catered for.
- Makefile.am rules somewhere use GNU make 3.80 features. I have
encountered many difficulties preventing autotools reruns on other
systems, and am quite fed up with hunting these down.
- I have a pending Solaris/whole_archive_flag_spec patch, fixing a
regression, and to make libtool work on Solaris 10.
So here are the action points, initialed where I plan to take them
pending agreement from (most of) you guys.
1. strike the macro ordering audit from the release blocker list. GVV
2. fix LTDL_{CONVENIENCE,INSTALLABLE} bug on CVS HEAD. GVV
OK. Whatever that may be. You webpage does not seem accessible at the
moment.
3. make a per-deblib-branch for these changes.
Do not make a branch. Pretty please.
4. evaluate whether -c -o DoS is a release blocker too.
4a. fix it if it is
4b. strike it from the blocker list if it isn't
See above. I have a half-baked fix lying around somewhere, but will
post only after many tests.
5. test like crazy. and fix any platform issues uncovered GVV
If I haven't made it clear yet: that is what I've *really* been doing.
The static test was the aim, and the bulk of the work, the per-deplibs
flags and the `-static' hardcoding fix were the fallout.
And I have several more tests which I would like to write or have
already started. For example: I would like comprehensive exposure of -L
path issues in order to fix the OpenBSD link `-L path order issue' right,
so that it does not turn into another regression on another system.
I know you would rather release. There is a trade off: better test
exposure vs. release delay. My being fed up with working on bootstrap
and similar issues that were mostly introduced by the great code
reorganizations, and also there being very few test suite contributors
and people working on bug reports, has led me to work on the former.
Libtool will only get consistently better with a testsuite that exposes
much more issues. And if you then
Re: libtool-2.0 release [WAS per-deplib static/dynamic flags]
On Thu, 2 Feb 2006, Gary V. Vaughan wrote: According to: http://tkd.kicks-ass.net/GnuLibtoolProject/RoadMap, the three remaining release blockers for 2.0 are: * ! libtool.m4 macro ordering/requirement audit. pending * ! LT_WITH_LTDL should build libltdl by default; currently nothing happens unless LTDL_CONVENIENCE or LTDL_INSTALLABLE is also given. * ! fix potential denial of service with compilers that do not understand -c -o. * not very likely to happen * http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libtool-patches/2005-03/msg00252.html I know that Ralf is aware of a few more release-blocking issues than these. One of them is to be able to libtoolize with a libltdl directory using the non-recursive option and end up with a subordinate Makefile.inc which works. Currently the generated Makefile.inc takes some hand-tweaking. I have also noticed some disturbing leakage of default compiler (GCC) path information into the build which causes -m64 to not work properly (at least under Solaris, but seems likely to impact other targets as well). This bug did not used to exist on the 2.0 branch. In my test case, the compiler is always run via a shell script wrapper (gcc-64) which always runs gcc with -m64 so I am not sure what libtool did to encourage gcc to undo the effect of that option. I have been re-libtoolizing various projects with libtool 2.0 and have encountered resounding success with MinGW (very good!). Bob == Bob Friesenhahn [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/ GraphicsMagick Maintainer,http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/ ___ http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
