Re: FYI: libtool.m4 removal problem

[Ralf Wildenhues]

* Daniel Reed wrote on Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 05:42:36PM CET:
> On 2004-12-13T08:12+0100, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> ) Also, I'm entirely unconvinced as to his idea of parallel libtool
> ) installations.  I can see the value when developing libtool, but
> ) allowing/encouraging users to do so, I fear, would only increase
> ) libtool maintenance burden (having to support old releases for
> ) longer time).
>
*snip*
>             I will not be shipping multiple versions of Libtool, either,
> which means we will continue shipping only out of branch-1-5 until newer
> versions accept the exact syntax used by 1.5 and earlier

So far I would consider each non-backwards compatible change in Libtool
a bug (which is one reason branch-2-0 and HEAD are not released).  With
respect to unpatched releases, that is.

Maintenance burden for Libtool would likely be higher than for Automake,
too, if only because Libtool constantly has to be adapted to new systems.

On the other hand, Chuck's argument is a convincing one:  /if/ newer
Libtool provides an upgrade obstacle to software packages at all, it
it much better to allow for parallel installations than not.  There's
little value in having distributors work out how to do parallel
installations if anybody needs these.  I still had the hope that we
could just get away *without* the need.

BTW, note that I try to backport bugfixes reported against branch-2-0
and HEAD immediately to branch-1-5 (in case they apply there as well),
because I know otherwise distributors will have to do that anyway.  I
see a huge value in people using unmodified Libtool packages (if only
because then I don't have to chase the phantom bug caused by a faulty
Mandrake patch).

This whole discussion, unfortunately, is moot until the other Libtool
developers have returned.

Regards,
Ralf