Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > Time spent on libtool 1.4.3 is time spent doing work which must > either be done a second time, or has already been done, for libtool > 1.5.
Not true. There were some patches backported even before now, I was doing some of the work under the expectation that we can see a libtool update somewhen. > > If a libtool 1.4.3 is prepared, then the next request will be for a > libtool 1.4.4, regardless of whether a libtool 1.5 is released. > Releasing a libtool 1.4.3 will encourage the same sort of behavior > which has caused so much trouble for Autoconf. It is better to let > the 1.4 line die of its own accord than to prop it up and encourage > developers not to use 1.5. Shortsighted. Actually, the 1.4.3 should have been pushed out in august, so it would now be part of mandrake 9.0, redhat 8.0 and suse 8.1. It would have been a bugfix release only and the distro makers would be easy to pick that up even late in the making. Such is different with a source tree that one can not easily diff to see visually if it is safe to bring it in late. > > In my experience, the 1.5 code-base is a solid product on systems > supported by 1.4.2, and provided that it is patched and proven to work > under MinGW and Darwin then 1.5 should be ready to release. > That's another argument. And since it was missed to push 1.4.3 out to the world when it was due, we can as well dump the work that I and others have done on the libtool-1-4 branch and well move ahead. Anyway, it would be nice if you'd find some nice words for those who were not on your branch of the developments, for which I understand you are proud of what you've achieved and that you want to have it out and recognized. _______________________________________________ Libtool mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
