Re: libguile-ltdl

[Rob Browning]

Han-Wen Nienhuys <address@hidden> writes:

> If there is a need for urgent bugfixes or more features in ltdl, then
> they can contributed to libtool, or (in extreme cases) libtool itself
> can be forked.

This is exactly what happened.  There were a number of attempts to
talk to the libtool upstream over a substantial period of time without
any response, though from a look at the eventual fixes that made it
in, they did eventually receive and apply our fixes.  If it hadn't
been for those communication difficulties, we probably never would
have created libguile-ltdl.

In any case, other than the possibility that we might want to add a
versioned dlopen (and that's only relevant if we're still sure we want
that, and if the libtool upstream wouldn't be interested), it looks
like the other reasons for having libguile-ltdl have been eliminited
by upstream fixes.

I'd like to see what Marius thinks, but we might be able to remove
libguile-ltdl in 1.7 now.  I'd be more hesitant to do so in 1.6,
unless it was only for cygwin.  Removing a library isn't a backward
compatible change.

-- 
Rob Browning
rlb @defaultvalue.org and @debian.org; previously @cs.utexas.edu
GPG starting 2002-11-03 = 14DD 432F AE39 534D B592  F9A0 25C8 D377 8C7E 73A4