On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 07:54:59PM +0100, Gary V. Vaughan wrote: > [Moved to libtool list] > > Ralf Wildenhues wrote on libtool-patches: > >I kept quiet a while ago when Bob first suggested ditching the CVS > >branch-2-0 and releasing CVS HEAD as 2.0 after a bit of stabilization. > >Now I estimate that, for us combined, it might save us a man month > >(whoohoo, maybe even a mythical one :) or more. > > > >This would be a strong argument to do it, IMVHO. > > > >The only problem is: I don't know how we can get CVS HEAD to work fine > >with released Autoconf/Automake versions. ATM I'm not even sure which > >issues there are: > >- LTLIBOBJS in subdirs > >- ? > > The showstopper for this plan is that libtool is holding up the next > release of all the other autotools[1], so we can't release HEAD as is > without causing headaches for everyone else, because it relies on > unreleased versions of the tools that are waiting for another libtool > release.
libtool-2.0 should not rely on newer autoconf/automake. People simply won't adopt it. RHEL 4 ships with autoconf-2.59 and automake-1.9.2. I'm not against requiring the latest, as of now, autoconf/automake, but relying on autoconf-2.60 and automake-1.10 seems way too aggressive. -- albert chin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) _______________________________________________ http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
