[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Bug-Report libtool-1.5.20

From: Ralf Wildenhues
Subject: Re: Bug-Report libtool-1.5.20
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 09:37:58 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.11

[ I have put the bug-libtool list in Cc: again ]

Hi Christof,

* Nuber, Christof wrote on Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 09:26:41AM CET:
> Von: Ralf Wildenhues
> > * Nuber, Christof wrote on Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 10:44:52AM CET:
> > >
> > > I tried to run make check for libtool-1.5.20 on a Linux-2.4.21-37
> > > ELsmp-Kernel (RedHat WS 3.6) on a HP xw 9300 (2x AMD Opteron 275),
> > > x64_86-Processor.  5 (mdemo-make.test, pdemo-inst.test,
> > > pdemo-exec.test, mdemo2-exec.test, tagdemo-exec.test) of 109 tests
> > > failed, 3 (mdemo-exec.test, mdemo-inst.test, demo-nopic.test) were
> > > not run.

> > Thank you for the bug report.  We need a bit more information.

> I couldn't reconstruct the bug. It occured while I was upgrading m4,
> libtools, autoconf and automake (in that order). After upgrading
> autoconf and automake I didn't get the message anymore. Sorry that I
> can't give you more information.

Well, if you could tell us which the previous installed autoconf and
automake versions were, that would likely be enough information to
reproduce the bug.  Then we can decide whether we need to do something
about it.  Thank you.

For the next upgrade round, it's probably more advisable to upgrade
autoconf before automake before libtool.  OTOH, given that m4-2.0
will likely depend on libtool-2.0, and autoconf's next major version 
*may* depend on m4-2.0, this can't be said for certain, *iff* you
are upgrading CVS versions which need bootstrapping.  If you instead
download tarballs, or simply upgrade from some packaging system, you
should be fine either way.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]