* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Sun, Sep 07, 2008 at 09:06:59AM CEST: > On 7 Sep 2008, at 06:41, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: >> * Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Sat, Sep 06, 2008 at 11:12:33PM CEST: >>> Prepare for next stable release. >>> * libltdl/Makefile.inc (LTDL_VERSION_INFO): Update. >>> * libltdl/m4/libtool.m4: Bump serial number to account for >>> changes since 2.2.4 release. >>> * INSTALL, config/config.guess, config/texinfo.tex: Updated >>> from canonical source. >>> * configure.ac (AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE): Specify dist-lzma, which >> >> No please don't! Why do we have to force Automake >= 1.10.1 >> upon people bootstrapping Libtool? >> >> Note that, even without dist-lzma, it works to issue >> make dist-lzma > > Okay, I'll revert that in master after the release tag.
Fine with me, thanks. You can probably just leave it in, too: when the next stable release is out, it likely won't be so much of an issue any more... > Why is Automake >= 1.10.1 an issue though? It's been around for > almost a year... But some distros still have two-year latencies for stable -> stable releases. >> iff you happen to be using new-enough Automake. >> >>> was introduced after automake-1.10 was released. >>> (abs_top_srcdir, abs_top_builddir): No need to substitute these >>> from configure anymore, since we require automake 1.10.1, which >>> does perform the substitutions properly. >> >> Hmm. > > And it lets us clean out some of the workaround cruft from our > configure.ac. Good point. >>> --- a/libltdl/Makefile.inc >>> +++ b/libltdl/Makefile.inc >>> @@ -36,7 +36,7 @@ AM_CPPFLAGS += -DLT_CONFIG_H='<$ >>> (LT_CONFIG_H)>' \ >>> -DLTDL -I. -I$(srcdir) -Ilibltdl \ >>> -I$(srcdir)/libltdl -I$(srcdir)/libltdl/libltdl >>> AM_LDFLAGS += -no-undefined >>> -LTDL_VERSION_INFO = -version-info 8:2:1 >>> +LTDL_VERSION_INFO = -version-info 9:0:0 >> >> Why? Was there an incompatible change that I missed? > > We removed a bunch of argz interfaces from the exported interface. But they were there only by accident, and never intended nor documented. I'm not sure if that counts as incompatible change. Actually, I had hoped that the 2.2.x branch wouldn't need any major ltdl version bumps, sigh. Cheers, Ralf