* 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.


Reply via email to