Hi Peter, On 26 Aug 2005, at 15:06, Peter Ekberg wrote:
Gary V. Vaughan wrote:Unless someone yells to the contrary real soon now, I see no reason to continue to maintain branch-2-0 from here on in.What is the requirements on the autotools for a libtoolized package from HEAD? I heard a rumor that cvs versions were required, at least at some point, is that really the case or was it just a rumor?
I've just successfully run 'make distcheck' on current libtool HEAD on darwin, using very lightly patch autoconf-2.59, and automake-1.9.6 (patches attached). The resulting libtool tarball should be installable and useable with considerably older versions of the other autotools (there is a small series of automake CVS revisions that won't work, but no released versions... except possibly the extremely ancient).
I can personally live with that the person doing the actual libtoolize needs cvs-autotools, but the rest of the developers on the package should not be required to use cvs-autotools.
Agreed. Infact, apart from those of us bootstrapping a libtool
release, it is a bug for an installed released libtool (including
libtoolize) to require non-released autotools.
Cheers,
Gary.
--
Gary V. Vaughan ())_. gary@
{lilith.warpmail.net,gnu.org},[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Research Scientist ( '/ http://www.tkd.kicks-ass.net GNU Hacker / )= http://www.gnu.org/software/{libtool,m4} Technical Author `(_~)_ http://sources.redhat.com/autobook
autoconf-2.59--patch-1--honour-libobj-dir.patch
Description: Binary data
autoconf-2.59--patch-2--darwin-fortran-crt2-fix.patch
Description: Binary data
automake-1.9.6--patch-1--honour-libobj-dir.patch
Description: Binary data
PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
