Hi Eric,
Thanks for trying this out with m4, you beat me to the punch :-)
On 23 Jan 2008, at 22:00, Eric Blake wrote:
The problem seems to stem from the fact that I had an older version of
libltdl copied into my M4 tree, and autoreconf runs aclocal prior to
libtoolize, so it was picking up the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Eric Blake on 1/22/2008 11:30 PM:
| However, autoreconf -fi now complains:
|
| autoreconf: running: aclocal --force -I ltdl/m4
| configure.ac:92: error: multiple libltdl directories: `ltdl',
| `nonrecursive convenience'
| ltdl/m4/ltdl.m4:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Ralf Wildenhues on 1/7/2008 1:40 PM:
|
| Well, I finally got done with my look over this, so you may want to
| consider it first. And when you're done and bored again, I will post a
| few test failures to ponder over, ok? ;-)
I haven't
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 06:20:31AM CET:
> On 17 Jan 2008, at 03:37, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> >OK to apply this patch to fix it and some other cases?
>
> Yes please.
Done as below, thanks.
> Our libtoolize test coverage is still extremely poor. When you commit
> could you
Hi Gary,
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 05:29:17AM CET:
> On 16 Jan 2008, at 14:22, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> >OK to apply?
>
> I have some nits first. Please commit once they are addressed.
Addressed and committed as noted below. Thanks for your quick review.
> > * NEWS:
On 17 Jan 2008, at 12:47, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
However, I
am fairly confident that old libtool documentation recommended the
opposite order, and opposite order was likely required at that time.
I can't find any mention toward the relative order of AC_PROG_LIBTOOL
and AC_LIB_LTDL in branch-1-
Hallo Ralf,
On 17 Jan 2008, at 13:06, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 05:29:17AM CET:
On 16 Jan 2008, at 14:22, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Also clarify that `${top_build_prefix}' may be used in place of
`${top_builddir}/'.
This is a differe
Hallo Ralf,
On 17 Jan 2008, at 03:37, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
OK to apply this patch to fix it and some other cases?
Yes please.
2008-01-16 Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* libtoolize.m4sh (func_scan_files): Avoid matching our own
macro code when scanning configure.ac
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 05:29:17AM CET:
> On 16 Jan 2008, at 14:22, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
>
> > Also clarify that `${top_build_prefix}' may be used in place of
> > `${top_builddir}/'.
>
> This is a different patch.
Yes, it's instance 10/11 of cleaning up after pa
Hi Bob,
* Bob Friesenhahn wrote on Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 01:17:58AM CET:
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2008, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> >
> >>However, as usual, I don't feel qualified to review other aspects
> >>of this patch...
> >
> >Well, thanks anyway for spotting this typo!
>
> With this change, I am ok wit
Hallo Ralf,
Thanks for the fast fixes!
On 16 Jan 2008, at 14:22, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
OK to apply?
I have some nits first. Please commit once they are addressed.
2008-01-16 Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
New variable LIBLTDL_DEP for use in output_DEPENDENCIES.
* l
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
However, as usual, I don't feel qualified to review other aspects
of this patch...
Well, thanks anyway for spotting this typo!
With this change, I am ok with the documentation updates. However, I
am fairly confident that old libtool documentatio
When the user copies the libtool macros into aclocal.m4 (which is
discouraged but something we support), the 333 patch causes a nice
failure in a third-party package:
> [Running] /tmp/libtool/install/libtool-2.1/bin/libtoolize --automake --copy
> /tmp/libtool/install/libtool-2.1/bin/libtoolize: ev
Hi Peter,
* Peter Rosin wrote on Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 08:13:59PM CET:
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 08:07:41PM +0100, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
>
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] macro (after the call to @samp{LTDL_INIT}
>
> Is the second instance a typo? Should be LT_INIT, right?
Yes.
> However, as usual, I do
On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 08:07:41PM +0100, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * Ralf Wildenhues wrote on Sat, Jan 12, 2008 at 03:15:03PM CET:
> >
> > So I ask to please clarify once and for all the order in which things
> > should be (including a notice in NEWS), the rationale for it, and please
> > to make
* Ralf Wildenhues wrote on Sat, Jan 12, 2008 at 03:15:03PM CET:
>
> So I ask to please clarify once and for all the order in which things
> should be (including a notice in NEWS), the rationale for it, and please
> to make it clear in the manual whether LTDL_INIT requires that LT_INIT
> also be ca
* Ralf Wildenhues wrote on Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 08:34:05AM CET:
> * Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 05:23:24AM CET:
> > >
> > >Sure you want to disallow users just passing in appropriate CPPFLAGS
> > >and
> > >LDFLAGS to find an installed libltdl? I would count that as an
> > >inco
Hallo Ralf,
On 15 Jan 2008, at 15:23, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 08:04:35AM CET:
On 15 Jan 2008, at 14:24, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Expect a fix for the remaining fallout from 333 soon.
I thought this was the last thing?
No.
What else needs to b
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 08:04:35AM CET:
> On 15 Jan 2008, at 14:24, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
>>
>> Expect a fix for the remaining fallout from 333 soon.
>
> I thought this was the last thing?
No.
> What else needs to be addressed before I can roll an alpha (excepting
> Pet
Hallo Ralf,
On 15 Jan 2008, at 14:24, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Expect a fix for the remaining fallout from 333 soon.
I thought this was the last thing?
What else needs to be addressed before I can roll an alpha (excepting
Peter's
current work)?
Cheers,
Gary
--
Gary V. Vaughan ([EMA
Hi Gary,
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 03:22:07AM CET:
> On 15 Jan 2008, at 03:24, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> >OK to apply this fix (feeling a bit hackish, but does exactly what's
> >needed)?
>
> Absolutely. Sorry I didn't get to it sooner myself. I can't think of a
> cleaner wa
Tag Ralf,
On 15 Jan 2008, at 03:24, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
* Ralf Wildenhues wrote on Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 08:29:05PM CET:
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 05:23:24AM CET:
On 8 Jan 2008, at 04:40, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
With this patch, I see in the log of
make distcheck
tha
Hello Gary,
I've applied this patch to fix an omission in your change.
Cheers,
Ralf
2008-01-14 Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* libltdl/m4/ltoptions.m4 (AC_ENABLE_SHARED): Fix to use
new _LT_SET_OPTION semantics.
Index: libltdl/m4/ltoptions.m4
===
* Ralf Wildenhues wrote on Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 08:29:05PM CET:
> * Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 05:23:24AM CET:
> > On 8 Jan 2008, at 04:40, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> >
> >> With this patch, I see in the log of
> >> make distcheck
> >>
> >> that the libltdl subdirectory is being c
Hi Gary,
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 05:23:24AM CET:
[...]
>>> Index: ChangeLog
>>> from Gary V. Vaughan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[...]
>>> * libltdl/m4/libtool.m4 (LT_INIT): Declare that this macro must be
>>> expanded before LTDL_INIT, and be sure to parse caller optio
Hi Gary,
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 10:00:30AM CET:
> On 8 Jan 2008, at 04:40, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
>
>> There is code that checks $prefix/lib. I realize this has been that
>> way
>> before your patch, but shouldn't we test (expanded) $libdir instead,
>> so
>> that user
Hi Gary,
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 05:23:24AM CET:
> On 8 Jan 2008, at 04:40, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
>
>> With this patch, I see in the log of
>> make distcheck
>>
>> that the libltdl subdirectory is being configured. This is wrong, as
>> libltdl in the Libtool package shou
Hallo Ralf,
On 8 Jan 2008, at 04:40, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
There is code that checks $prefix/lib. I realize this has been that
way
before your patch, but shouldn't we test (expanded) $libdir instead,
so
that users of libdir='${prefix}/lib64' get what they want?
Hmm. Well, looking thro
Hello Gary, Bob, Bob,
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 05:23:24AM CET:
> >
> >Sure you want to disallow users just passing in appropriate CPPFLAGS
> >and
> >LDFLAGS to find an installed libltdl? I would count that as an
> >incompatible API change, too.
>
> CPPFLAGS and LDFLAGS w
On 8 Jan 2008, at 04:40, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Hello Gary,
Morgen Ralf,
Thanks for the review.
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 05:35:30PM CET:
I'm going to try and roll an alpha release for wider testing over the
next day or two.
Well, I finally got done with my look ove
Hello Gary,
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 05:35:30PM CET:
>
> I'm going to try and roll an alpha release for wider testing over the
> next day or two.
Well, I finally got done with my look over this, so you may want to
consider it first. And when you're done and bored again, I
31 matches
Mail list logo
