On Mon, 29 Aug 2005, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
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
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
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 advert
Hallo Ralf,
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
s
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
|>
|> Hear! Hear!
|
|
| Blast. Seems I'm outvoted. To my mind there are good arguments for
| either case... but I'm not rabid about keeping branch-2-0 alive, so if
| the concensus is to drop the current branch-2-0 then so be i
Hi Bob!
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2005, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Now, our branch-2-0 testsuite is much inferior, so it's less likely to
_find_ some of these bugs. Add to that the fact that I for one do not
know of one single bug present in HEAD but not in branch-2-0.
This is why I w
Hallo Ralf,
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
I believe you just contradicted yourself.
I'm good at that :-) But you have to really pay attention to catch me
out! :-p
If you put big patches into a release branch, you're by definition _not_
stabilizing it! More to the point: both the recent commits
On Tue, 23 Aug 2005, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Now, our branch-2-0 testsuite is much inferior, so it's less likely to
_find_ some of these bugs. Add to that the fact that I for one do not
know of one single bug present in HEAD but not in branch-2-0.
This is why I would branch the next stable off
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 04:03:20PM CEST:
> Albert Chin wrote:
> >On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 08:11:48AM +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> >>
> >>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 coup
On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 03:03:20PM +0100, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
> Albert Chin wrote:
> >On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 08:11:48AM +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> >
> >>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
> >>c
Albert Chin wrote:
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 fir
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 suggest
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 10:00:50PM CEST:
>
> Is there a public record of these? TODO file? Search string for the
> list archives? next mail in this thread? ;-)
The following is not very well ordered, not very well cross-referenced,
has nonempty overlap with the in-tree T
* 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
On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 07:54:59PM +0100, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
> [Moved to libtool list]
>
> 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.
> >Now I estimate
Hallo Ralf,
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 08:54:59PM CEST:
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 only
On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 07:54:59PM +0100, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
> [1] Autoconf-2.60 needs M4-2.0 needs Libtool-2.0 (ISTR that
For what does Autoconf need M4 2.0?
___
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
Hi Gary,
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 08:54:59PM CEST:
> [Moved to libtool list]
Thanks.
> 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.
[Moved to libtool list]
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.
Now I estimate that, for us combined, it might save us a man month
(whoohoo, maybe even a my
19 matches
Mail list logo
