On Tue, 2003-10-07 at 16:36, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
> Robert Millan wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 27, 2003 at 08:04:55PM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> >>Robert Millan wrote:
> >>>We should start doing that, and I can help. Just requested copyright papers
> >>>myself (I assume you've already done th
On Tue, 2003-10-07 at 18:48, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 04:36:47PM +0100, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
> > >>>libtool maintainers: Would you consider giving either Scott or me
> > >>>(preferably
> > >>>both) with CVS access? That'd help a lot getting libtool in shape for all
> > >>>
On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 04:36:47PM +0100, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
> My apologies for having taken so long to respond to this thread. My
> hacking time is short, and the thread was growing faster than I could read
> it... :-)
No problem.
> >>>libtool maintainers: Would you consider giving either
My apologies for having taken so long to respond to this thread. My hacking
time is short, and the thread was growing faster than I could read it... :-)
Robert Millan wrote:
On Sat, Sep 27, 2003 at 08:04:55PM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
Robert Millan wrote:
We should start doing that, and
Robert Millan wrote:
On Sat, Sep 27, 2003 at 02:36:13AM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
Getting these patches accepted upstream is tricky though, I've sent some
bug fixes through. A few days ago I decided to have a go getting some
of the portability patches (some of which are large) accepted, I
On Sat, Sep 27, 2003 at 02:36:13AM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> Actually if it was branch-1-5 you were testing, that'd be the new 1.5.0a
> (1.5.1) release. 1.5b would be on HEAD (as far as I understand the
> esoteric version numbering upstream use) and a pre-release of
> libtool 1.6 (which
On Fri, 2003-09-26 at 20:46, Robert Millan wrote:
> The libtool upstream maintainers are preparing a new 1.5b release. On their
> behalf I've recently attempted to test a snapshot from CVS branch-1-5 on all
> architectures Debian supports (or pretends to support) that I had access to.
>
Actually
[ CCing to debian maintainer and libtool upstream ]
Hi there folks.
The libtool upstream maintainers are preparing a new 1.5b release. On their
behalf I've recently attempted to test a snapshot from CVS branch-1-5 on all
architectures Debian supports (or pretends to support) that I had access to
On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 10:17:34AM -0500, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> > - If you send too many patches for review without having CVS access, then you
> >might consider assigning copyright so that you can send more patches for
> >review.
>
> The FSF guidelines specify allow to 14 lines of *to
On Sun, 28 Sep 2003, Robert Millan wrote:
>
> Assigning copyright and being given CVS access is not necessarily related:
For any substantial updates, copyright is certainly the driving issue.
> - If you send too many patches for review without having CVS access, then you
>might consider assi
On Sat, Sep 27, 2003 at 08:04:55PM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
>
> Or an even better one, just from build failures in the last few days ...
> upstream placing the contents of libtool.m4 in acinclude.m4, so even
> after aclocal runs the old version is still used.
>
> One thing about maintaini
Oh, to the ode of creating new worms...
Robert Millan wrote:
On Sat, Sep 27, 2003 at 07:26:20PM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
Updating to any later version of Libtool is the same amount of work,
whether it be the Debian-patched version or not. Most of the time, when
build failures occur, the
On Sat, 2003-09-27 at 21:46, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 27, 2003 at 07:26:20PM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > Updating to any later version of Libtool is the same amount of work,
> > whether it be the Debian-patched version or not. Most of the time, when
> > build failures occur, t
On Sat, Sep 27, 2003 at 07:26:20PM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> Updating to any later version of Libtool is the same amount of work,
> whether it be the Debian-patched version or not. Most of the time, when
> build failures occur, the package upstream is using either an insanely
> out of da
On Sat, 2003-09-27 at 19:46, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 27, 2003 at 04:30:15AM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > On Sat, 2003-09-27 at 06:06, Robert Millan wrote:
> > > It's not the Debian libtool package which is (generaly) used by upstream
> > > maintainers to update their libtools.
On Sat, Sep 27, 2003 at 04:30:15AM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> On Sat, 2003-09-27 at 06:06, Robert Millan wrote:
> > It's not the Debian libtool package which is (generaly) used by upstream
> > maintainers to update their libtools. My concern is with upstream packages
> > using upstream lib
On Sat, 27 Sep 2003, Dalibor Topic wrote:
> I appreciate the hard work you're doing on keeping libtool in shape on
> debian. I can feel with you a little bit, as I'm hacking on kaffe's
> build system, and kaffe (in theory, at least) builds on 50+ platforms, a
> few of which I ocassionally get to t
Scott James Remnant wrote:
We're all VERY well aware that upstream libtool isn't portable across
all Debian architectures, it doesn't work on arm at all -- and until
recently didn't work on mips, mipsel or m68k either!
This is precisely why Debian's libtool package contains so many
additional patch
Hi Scott,
I appreciate the hard work you're doing on keeping libtool in shape on
debian. I can feel with you a little bit, as I'm hacking on kaffe's
build system, and kaffe (in theory, at least) builds on 50+ platforms, a
few of which I ocassionally get to test, and fix/let people fix libtool
(Removed debian lists from Cc, I don't see how this is relevant to the
porters)
On Sat, 2003-09-27 at 06:06, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 27, 2003 at 02:36:13AM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > Use the Debian libtool package, not only do I currently track CVS rather
> > than use the p
20 matches
Mail list logo
