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 delay
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> Hi Gary,
Hallo Ralf!
[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.]
> > > > * LT_WITH_LTDL should build libltdl by default; currently
> > > >nothing
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 a
Hi Gary,
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 01:06:40PM CET:
> Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> >
> > 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'
* 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
On Fri, 3 Feb 2006, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
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? AFAIK the 1.5 docs require you to use
AC_LIB_LTDL, _
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
Hallo Ralf, Bob, Peter, Eric,
Is this patch really necessary for 2.0? 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.
Now is t
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
