Hello libtoolers, I would like to release 1.5.24 as soon as possible. I've flushed my queue now, except for the patch I just posted and whatever w32 changes are still needed.
To ensure that there are no regressions, I would like to announce a sort of prerelease. To make things simple, the easiest would be for me to just wait a day, then tell people on the libtool and maybe also the autotools-announce lists to download the nightly snapshot and try it. Would that be ok? Should we rather do a real prerelease, so it's archived on alpha.gnu.org, and so the finch.finkproject.org doesn't have to handle lots of requests (ha ha)? Any thoughts, comments about this? FWIW, I've done a test run of branch-1-5, here's some results: PASS SKIP FAIL config.guess compiler used notes ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 64 29 1 powerpc-ibm-aix4.3.3.0 cc (xlc) fail: mdemo-inst 94 0 0 powerpc-ibm-aix4.3.3.0 cc (xlc) rtl 70 32 1 powerpc-ibm-aix5.1.0.0 cc (xlc), xlC_r fail: mdemo-inst 103 0 0 powerpc-ibm-aix5.1.0.0 cc (xlc), xlC_r rtl 70 32 1 powerpc-ibm-aix5.2.0.0 cc (xlc), xlC_r fail: mdemo-inst 103 0 0 powerpc-ibm-aix5.2.0.0 cc (xlc), xlC_r rtl 70 32 1 powerpc-ibm-aix5.3.0.0 cc (xlc), xlC_r fail: mdemo-inst 103 0 0 powerpc-ibm-aix5.3.0.0 cc (xlc), xlC_r rtl 110 1 1 i686-pc-cygwin gcc, g++, g77 fail: mdemo2-make 103 0 0 powerpc-apple-darwin8.7.0 gcc, g++ 112 0 0 i386-unknown-freebsd6.2 gcc, g++, g77 83 11 0 hppa2.0-hp-hpux10.20 cc skip: demo-nofast/depdemo-nofast and f'ups, demo-nopic 92 11 0 hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.00 cc, aCC likewise 92 11 0 hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11 cc, aCC likewise 92 11 0 hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.23 cc, aCC likewise 102 0 1 ia64-hp-hpux11.23 cc, aCC, fail: hardcode 100 0 3 mips-sgi-irix6.5 cc, CC, fail: hardcode, build-relink2, link-order 111 1 0 x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu gcc, g++, g77 skip: demo-nopic 109 1 2 i686-pc-mingw32 gcc, g++, g77 fail: dryrun, mdemo-make 110 0 2 i386-unknown-openbsd3.9 gcc, g++, g77 fail: hardcode, link-order 103 0 0 alphaev5-dec-osf4.0d cc, cxx 103 0 0 alphaev67-dec-osf5.1 cc, cxx 101 1 1 sparc-sun-solaris2.6 cc, CC fail: hardcode, skip: demo-nopic, needs gmake 110 1 1 sparc-sun-solaris2.7 cc, CC, f77 fail: hardcode, skip: demo-nopic 111 1 0 sparc-sun-solaris2.8 cc, CC, f77 skip: demo-nopic 111 1 0 sparc-sun-solaris2.9 likewise 111 1 0 sparc-sun-solaris2.10 cc, CC, f77 skip: demo-nopic 111 1 0 i386-pc-solaris2.10 cc, CC, f90 skip: demo-nopic Notes: - The mdemo failures on AIX without runtimelinking are well known. HEAD does better here. I am reluctant to backport, though, and propose to leave things as they are. - The hardcode failures are at least partly due to the weird test. I think writing more better tests in HEAD (additionally to shlibpath.at) can help sort things out here. I propose leaving things here as well. - OpenBSD: The link-order failure is fixed in HEAD with the introduction of hardcode_direct_absolute. I do not want to backport. - The IRIX failures are not new. Looking into a fix though. - It would help me greatly if someone could look into the Cygwin and MinGW mdemo* failures; and documentation updates if needed. To conclude, I think we're in shape unless we learn about important bugs in the release candidate. Of course a much better test exposure would be good (e.g., GCC on many of the above systems). Cheers, Ralf
