Re: Next Libtool Point Release Pending

On Mon, 9 Aug 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: * Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Mon, Aug 09, 2010 at 06:52:19PM CEST: That's true, but I think that was because we tried too hard to make the 2.x branch perfect, and spent altogether too much time pumping out more and more 1.5.x releases with patches merged

Re: another func_append inlining regression

* Ralf Wildenhues wrote on Mon, Aug 09, 2010 at 10:55:25PM CEST: > Note the double colon after -blibpath, which is due to a regression in > v2.2.10-40-g0da7d80 fixed with the patch below. I wish I'd never > approved that patch, this one took me so long to find ... I did a re-review of that patch,

another func_append inlining regression (was: libtool-2.2.11a on AIX 5.3 current git master / followup on the old test suite and failures in the new testsuit)

* Rainer Tammer wrote on Thu, Aug 05, 2010 at 09:25:14AM CEST: > The new test suite still yields many failures in comparison to 2.2.8. I assume most if not all of the regressions are due to a single issue: > # grep FAILED check.log > 38: Link order of deplibs FAILED > (

MSVC status

Hi! Christopher Hulbert asked for some MSVC status in a private message, but I figured more people might be interested. So, I'm posting a testsuite log from libtool master. It was configured with: ../configure \ CC="/c/cygwin/home/peda/automake/git/automake/lib/compile cl" CFLAGS="-MD -Zi -EHs

autobuild logs for Libtool (was: Next Libtool Point Release Pending)

* Ralf Wildenhues wrote on Mon, Aug 09, 2010 at 08:42:24PM CEST: > I do think however that it's time that our testing efforts become a bit > more coordinated, to make regression tracking easier and more apparent. > Will reply to this post with more details. I think Libtool should use Autobuild,

Re: Next Libtool Point Release Pending

Hello, * Peter O'Gorman wrote on Mon, Aug 09, 2010 at 05:38:44PM CEST: > I don't think having a stable and development branch worked well > with 1.5.x and 2.x. It added more work for us, and did not serve our > users well - they had to wait years for the development branch's > features to make it

Re: Next Libtool Point Release Pending

On Aug 9, 2010, at 10:38 PM, Peter O'Gorman wrote: > On 08/09/2010 12:33 AM, Gary V. Vaughan wrote: >> By the reasoning I stated there, we should really have branched >> for 2.2 releases before adding any new features. So, if we >> want to release a 2.2.12, then we should make a branch at >> v2.2

Re: Next Libtool Point Release Pending

On 08/09/2010 12:33 AM, Gary V. Vaughan wrote: By the reasoning I stated there, we should really have branched for 2.2 releases before adding any new features. So, if we want to release a 2.2.12, then we should make a branch at v2.2.10 and merge only fixes to it. I don't think having a stab

Re: [PATCH] Autotest 2.62 bug?

On 08/09/2010 05:14 AM, Gary V. Vaughan wrote: > Hallo Ralf, > > The following patch makes it possible to bootstrap libtool.git master with > Autoconf 2.62, > though it is not necessary when using a newer Autoconf. > > Unfortunately I don't know my way around the innards of Autotest well enough

[PATCH] Autotest 2.62 bug?

Hallo Ralf, The following patch makes it possible to bootstrap libtool.git master with Autoconf 2.62, though it is not necessary when using a newer Autoconf. Unfortunately I don't know my way around the innards of Autotest well enough to be able to figure out what the problem is, though with ti

Re: [RFT PATCH v4 0/8] Sysroot series

* Charles Wilson wrote: [...] > Quick poll: does anybody's (linux) system 'ld' support the --sysroot > option? To find out, just run 'ld --sysroot=/bob' > > Mandriva 2010.1: ld --version > GNU ld (Linux/GNU Binutils) 2.20.51.0.7.20100318 > ---> NO. I run Debian sid, and my native ld seems to sup