* Charles Wilson wrote on Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 12:41:08AM CEST:
>
> The only problem I see is if libtool-HEAD-after-2.0 (say, nearing the
> /next/ major release) begins requiring ac-2.61/am-1.10 (or even
> newer).
You'll have my vote against that happening too soon.
> I suspect they will make mor
Charles Wilson wrote:
I'll generate and
test an additional patch addressing Bruno's concerns.
Attached. Re-ran *all* of the tests described here:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libtool-patches/2007-04/msg00073.html
with identical results.
I did not bump the argz.m4 serial again (I'm not su
On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 23:57:13 +0200, "Bruno Haible" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[Lots of good comments...snipped]
As I was the originator of this change (though not its final form), and
because Ralf has already committed it to libtool cvs, I'll generate and
test an additional patch addressing Bruno's conc
On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 23:01:10 +0200, "Ralf Wildenhues"
> FWIW, this isn't going to change a lot for me. If I have doubts that
> changes are free of regressions, then there is work to be done.
agreed.
> It's
> not helpful if GCC developers have to sort out those regressions.
> Conversely, if GCC
Hi Ralf,
A bit of gnitpicking:
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> Here's what the gnulib patch looks like.
> + set x `uname -r | $SED -e 's/^\([[0-9\.]]*\).*/\1/'`
$SED is usually not defined in the context of autoconf macros that are
part of gnulib. (I.e. it expands to empty.) Just use 'sed' in
[ http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gnu.libtool.patches/7314/focus=7498 ]
Thanks Charles for all your work on this. I installed this path into
Libtool HEAD, and pulled the changes over to gnulib. Here's what the
gnulib patch looks like.
Cheers,
Ralf
2007-04-25 Charles Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECT
* Eric Blake wrote on Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 02:08:38AM CEST:
> According to Ralf Wildenhues on 4/24/2007 3:05 PM:
> > Let's document a useful variant of it then. Is this wording OK?
> > * README, README.alpha: Document how to test an arbitrary
> > installed libtool script.
>
> Looks great
* Charles Wilson wrote on Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 04:42:38AM CEST:
>
> FYI, I'm going to focus on the argz patch before returning to this one.
Which is fine.
> (I
> am pushing a bit, because if possible and acceptable to [Ralf|Gary|others],
> I want to get both the argz stuff and as much of the "e
Hi Charles,
* Charles Wilson wrote on Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 05:38:49AM CEST:
> Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
>
>> Thanks also for the documentation suggestion. Slightly rewritten
>> suggestion to come up.
>
> Ping? [antecedent reposted below]
Sigh. I had hoped to have enough time to work on this. Alas
