* Charles Wilson wrote on Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 12:41:08AM CEST: > > The only problem I see is if libtool-HEAD-after-2.0 (say, nearing the > /next/ major release) begins requiring ac-2.61/am-1.10 (or even > newer).
You'll have my vote against that happening too soon. > I suspect they will make more of an effort to keep up with current > autotools, plus I think any future ac/am updates will be much less, err, > issue-prone than the ac-2.13/ac-2.5x transition was. Let's also reverse that statement: the more GCC keeps up to date with autotools, the less there is a chance that they will regress wrt. the functionality that GCC needs. Of course if people can > On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 23:01:10 +0200, "Ralf Wildenhues" > > Primary aim is to release Libtool 2. Effectively you are suggesting > > that Cygwin's "transparent_exe" feature, its argz bug, and the MinGW > > breakage of cwrapper be considered release blockers. > > The latter two, yes: see below. The first one: no. Only, if you ARE > going to accept it before 2.0, then I'd prefer to get that done before > the upcoming gcc import, rather than miss it by a few days. If you're > NOT going to accept it pre-2.0, or if it takes a month to stabilize and > we miss the gcc "deadline" by _weeks_, then no problem. We can try, but running toward a deadline that's not known in advance can be challenging. ;-) > It was you who said in response, last week: > http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2007-04/msg00549.html > "... I'd prefer to see such a patch before deciding when it's good to > put it in." Yes, and I stand by that now. Because I understand that these bugs are important to fix. Count all my other inconsistencies wrt. what I said months ago as me being wrong about when we'd have version 2 finished. Let's try to be as pragmatic as possible. Hope that works out. Cheers, Ralf
