Hi Gary, * Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Fri, Aug 26, 2005 at 09:42:23PM CEST: > On 26 Aug 2005, at 16:38, Albert Chin wrote: > >On Fri, Aug 26, 2005 at 04:26:57PM +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > >>* Peter Ekberg wrote on Fri, Aug 26, 2005 at 04:06:05PM CEST: > >>>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? > >> > >>At the moment they are required after a cvs checkout of Libtool > >>HEAD for building itself. > > > >When will HEAD be able to bootstrap with the latest released > >autoconf/automake? > > Just as soon as autoconf and automake put out new releases ;-)
I beg to disagree. > But really, we would have to back out a lot of patches from libtool > HEAD (including another major reorganisation of the source tree) > to make that work. I beg to disagree again, to the utmost extent. :) > And the whole point of dropping branch-2-0 is to bring a 2.0 release > closer. The 3 patches I attached to an earlier mail are not too > onerous. With those applied to autoconf-2.59 and automake-1.9.6, you > can bootstrap right now. If the LIBOBJDIR issue is the only one: it's almost trivial to work around it within Libtool. Show at eleven on libtool-patches as soon as I've tested my prototype 10-line patch enough. :-> (Surely the darwin-related patch is still important; but so are a couple of Solaris 10 issues fixed after 2.59. But bootstrapping with released autotools should *just work* other than that, after the patch.) Cheers, Ralf _______________________________________________ http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
