Re: FYI: libtool.m4 removal problem

[Daniel Reed]

On 2004-12-18T11:56-0600, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
) On Wed, 15 Dec 2004, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
) >>             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
) > 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.
) I agree with Chuck that supporting parallel installs will help get
) newer libtools into distributions faster.

I respectfully, but authoritatively, disagree.

If the tools are largely incompatible, the newer versions will not be
shipped for quite a while. Supporting multiple simultaneous installations
may simply be a "cop out" to supporting backwards compatibility. There will
still be large code bases worked on by dozens or more developers on systems
outside of their control. Any attempt to "modernize" the build control files
for these code bases will necessitate that all packaging developers
simultaneously adopt a version of the autotools that supports the modernized
syntax. This is unlikely for some projects.

Being backwards compatible in syntax is worth much, much more to me, as a
distributor, than supporting multiple simultaneous installs.

-- 
Daniel Reed <address@hidden>    http://people.redhat.com/djr/   
http://naim.n.ml.org/
"Murphy's Law is recursive. Washing your car to make it rain doesn't
work."