can we require libtool 1.4 ?

2002-05-14 Thread Greg Stein
libtool 1.3 has problems with intra-library dependencies. This is making some of the dependency stuff in apr(-util) a bit more complicated than it needs to be. The simple answer is to require libtool 1.4. Subversion has been on libtool 1.4 since last October. After some initial grumbling, there h

Re: can we require libtool 1.4 ?

2002-05-14 Thread Pier Fumagalli
"Greg Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > libtool 1.3 has problems with intra-library dependencies. This is making > some of the dependency stuff in apr(-util) a bit more complicated than it > needs to be. > > The simple answer is to require libtool 1.4. > > Subversion has been on libtool 1.4 si

Re: can we require libtool 1.4 ?

2002-05-14 Thread Sascha Schumann
> From IRC, I already have a +1 from Justin and Sander. So I'd say we have > enough positive traction for the move. But does anybody see any *problems* > or have a reason to *not* require 1.4 ? PHP has required 1.4.x for months and our latest distributions are based on it; no problems so f

Re: can we require libtool 1.4 ?

2002-05-14 Thread Jeff Trawick
Greg Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > libtool 1.3 has problems with intra-library dependencies. This is making > some of the dependency stuff in apr(-util) a bit more complicated than it > needs to be. > > The simple answer is to require libtool 1.4. Two concerns: 1) libtool 1.4.2 fails on H

Re: can we require libtool 1.4 ?

2002-05-14 Thread Jim Jagielski
Greg Stein wrote: > > I think it would simplify our life, and give us proper dependencies, yet not > cause any undue burden (libtool 1.4 has been out for a long while now...) > > >From IRC, I already have a +1 from Justin and Sander. So I'd say we have > enough positive traction for the move. But

Re: can we require libtool 1.4 ?

2002-05-14 Thread Aaron Bannert
On Tue, May 14, 2002 at 12:44:33AM -0700, Greg Stein wrote: > libtool 1.3 has problems with intra-library dependencies. This is making > some of the dependency stuff in apr(-util) a bit more complicated than it > needs to be. > > The simple answer is to require libtool 1.4. Are there any platform

Re: can we require libtool 1.4 ?

2002-05-14 Thread Sascha Schumann
On Tue, 14 May 2002, Aaron Bannert wrote: > On Tue, May 14, 2002 at 12:44:33AM -0700, Greg Stein wrote: > > libtool 1.3 has problems with intra-library dependencies. This is making > > some of the dependency stuff in apr(-util) a bit more complicated than it > > needs to be. > > > > The simple ans

Re: can we require libtool 1.4 ?

2002-05-14 Thread Aaron Bannert
> > Are there any platforms do _not_ support libtool 1.4 or have problems > > with it? What about specific versions of 1.4 (like 1.4.2 on AIX for > > example)? If so, I don't want to get in to the version nightmare that > > projects like PHP have gotten themselves in to. OTOH, if we can minimize >

Re: can we require libtool 1.4 ?

2002-05-14 Thread Jeff Trawick
Jeff Trawick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > The simple answer is to require libtool 1.4. > > Two concerns: > > 1) libtool 1.4.2 fails on HP-UX. One of the Apache tarballs was >created with libtool 1.4.2 but it didn't work on HP-UX. Maybe >1.4.x works on HP-UX. I was unable to recreat

Re: can we require libtool 1.4 ?

2002-05-14 Thread Garrett Rooney
On Tue, May 14, 2002 at 07:45:37AM -0700, Aaron Bannert wrote: > On Tue, May 14, 2002 at 12:44:33AM -0700, Greg Stein wrote: > > libtool 1.3 has problems with intra-library dependencies. This is making > > some of the dependency stuff in apr(-util) a bit more complicated than it > > needs to be. >

Re: can we require libtool 1.4 ?

2002-05-14 Thread Sascha Schumann
> PHP seems to require a magic combination of versions for libtool, > autoconf, and automake that allow it to build properly, and can on > occasion freak out if you don't have the right combo (Cliff, what is > up with your slackware?). Most likely a broken vendor installation of at least one

Re: can we require libtool 1.4 ?

2002-05-14 Thread Jim Jagielski
Aaron Bannert wrote: > > PHP seems to require a magic combination of versions for libtool, > autoconf, and automake that allow it to build properly, and can on > occasion freak out if you don't have the right combo (Cliff, what is > up with your slackware?). For what's it's worth, that's not been

Re: can we require libtool 1.4 ?

2002-05-14 Thread Cliff Woolley
On Tue, 14 May 2002, Sascha Schumann wrote: > > PHP seems to require a magic combination of versions for libtool, > > autoconf, and automake that allow it to build properly, and can on > > occasion freak out if you don't have the right combo (Cliff, what is > > up with your slackware?). > > Mo

Re: can we require libtool 1.4 ?

2002-05-14 Thread Greg Stein
On Tue, May 14, 2002 at 11:15:18AM -0400, Garrett Rooney wrote: > On Tue, May 14, 2002 at 07:45:37AM -0700, Aaron Bannert wrote: > > On Tue, May 14, 2002 at 12:44:33AM -0700, Greg Stein wrote: > > > libtool 1.3 has problems with intra-library dependencies. This is making > > > some of the dependenc

Re: can we require libtool 1.4 ?

2002-05-14 Thread Garrett Rooney
On Tue, May 14, 2002 at 11:48:06AM -0700, Greg Stein wrote: > > The FreeBSD ports tree doesn't yet support libtool 1.4 (it's an > > 'ports' may not have it, but libtool 1.4 works fine on FreeBSD. Ben > Collins-Sussman and yourself build Subversion on FreeBSD all the time, and > that requires 1.4.

Re: can we require libtool 1.4 ?

2002-05-14 Thread Sascha Schumann
> main/internal_functions.c was never generated. Now at least it would get > built by the Makefile if it *did* exist, which is more than used to > happen. Do you see a line "creating main/internal_functions.c" when running configure? If yes, please send me the output of configure, af

Re: can we require libtool 1.4 ?

2002-05-15 Thread Sascha Schumann
Just an addendum to the issue Cliff encountered with PHP. This was traced down to a minor abnormality in autoconf-2.50 which apparently was eliminated in later versions. I've committed a workaround for that. Case closed. - Sascha Experience

Re: can we require libtool 1.4 ?

2002-05-15 Thread Jeff Trawick
Jeff Trawick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Greg Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > libtool 1.3 has problems with intra-library dependencies. This is making > > some of the dependency stuff in apr(-util) a bit more complicated than it > > needs to be. > > > > The simple answer is to require