Re: branch-2-0 vs CVS HEAD

[Gary V. Vaughan]

Hallo Ralf,

On 29 Aug 2005, at 12:43, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:

Hi Gary,

private mail on purpose?

I've had chance to configure Thunderbird the way it's behaving atm! Grr.

[Quoting everything for the sake of readers on the list.]

Nup, my MUA is playing silly buggers. :-( Might go back to webmail until

* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 12:38:50PM CEST:

On 29 Aug 2005, at 07:29, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:

* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Sun, Aug 28, 2005 at 11:56:31PM CEST:

Regardless, LTDL_INIT is not documented at the moment, and I'm not
sure we want to explicitly support use of libltdl except as a
subpackage.   Although it has been possible to do so for quite some

Post-2.0, we can always firm up a long term interface, document it
and
*then* make a commitment to support that interface in the future.

time (if only because libtool itself has done so on and off over the last few years), we have never really *designed* an interface for it.

> > >

I don't understand this paragraph at all.  From what I could gather,
this was one of *the* new features to be advertised for the next
stable
version.

If I have touted this as a feature, I've forgotten.  Mea culpa.

Actually, I don't /know/ whether you did that, or I just always
understood wrongly.  At least it seems Bob misunderstood then, too.

Good point.

 When Bob reported several times that it was nonfunctional,

never was there a reply of yours stating this wasn't intended feature.

It certainly ought to work, because libtool itself is using it.

Libtool is not using LT_WITH_LTDL in $top_srcdir/configure.ac.
But client packages need to have the additional configure switches and
logic which is only triggered by LT_WITH_LTDL.

If OTOH you add LT_WITH_LTDL to configure.ac, at least the
AC_CONFIG_SUBDIRS at its end breaks libltdl-as-non-subpackage.

Was this bug description halfway understandable?

Yep.  Thanks.

While I can see you backing up because you want to move closer to this release, I cannot understand how you can argue now that this was not a

feature users should be able to profit from.

I am backing up because I want to release 2.0 asap.  On reflection, I
can't see any problem with supporting the current API for the
forseeable  future.  I'll work on a doc patch today.

Please keep the above in mind.  It would be very cool if this could be
made to work.

Sure.

Cheers,
    Gary.
--

Research Scientist   ( '/   http://www.tkd.kicks-ass.net
GNU Hacker           / )=   http://www.gnu.org/software/{libtool,m4}
Technical Author   `(_~)_   http://sources.redhat.com/autobook

Gary V. Vaughan ())_. gary@ {lilith.warpmail.net,gnu.org},[EMAIL PROTECTED]

PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

_______________________________________________
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool