Hallo Ralf!
On 7 Sep 2008, at 15:15, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
* 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:
* 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...
Okay, you talked me into leaving it :)
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.
We've always required that developers who want to rebootstrap libtool
have the latest autotools installed though. If someone is building
libtool from source, I don't think it is onerous to ask them to also
have reasonably recent autotools available too.
-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.
Oh, sorry. I took the 'version management' rules a bit too literally :(
4. If any interfaces have been added, removed, or changed since the
last update, increment CURRENT, and set REVISION to 0.
Maybe we can set age to '2' in 2.2.8 to compensate?
Cheers,
Gary
--
Email me: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ._(()
Read my blog: http://blog.azazil.net \' )
And my other blog: http://www.machaxor.net =( \
...and my book: http://sources.redhat.com/autobook _(~_)'
