Re: README/NEWS

[Gary V. Vaughan]

Hi Peter,

Peter O'Gorman wrote:
> | Index: README
> | ===================================================================
> | RCS file: /cvsroot/libtool/libtool/README,v
> | retrieving revision 1.17.2.1
> | diff -u -r1.17.2.1 README
> | --- README    14 Apr 2003 22:48:00 -0000    1.17.2.1
> | +++ README    1 Feb 2005 13:05:07 -0000
> | @@ -15,6 +15,7 @@
> |    Darwin 5.x, 6.x a.k.a Mac OS X (*-*-darwin*) [see note]
> |    Digital/UNIX 3.x, 4.x, a.k.a. OSF/1 (*-*-osf3*, *-*-osf4*)
> |    DG/UX R4.11, R4.12, R4.20 (*-*-dguxR411*, *-*-dguxR412*,
> *-*-dguxR420*)
> | +  DragonFly BSD 1.x (*-*-dragonfly*)
> |    FreeBSD 2.x, 3.x, 4.x (*-*-freebsd2*, *-*-freebsd3*, *-*-freebsd4*)
> 
> Do we really want all this crap in the README?

This stuff can trace its history back to 1996 when Gord added it to afford
bragging rights about the many platforms supported by early libtool.  I've
dropped it from the rewritten README files in HEAD and branch-2-0 mostly
because it was hard to keep it up to date.  I'm certainly not attached to it
in any way.

As the branch-1-5 pumpking, the decision is yours! ;-)

> Proper bug reporting
> instructions would be a better use of this space, don't you agree? (just
> copy from the instructions in HEAD's README?)

Agreed.

> | +NOTE: The default shell on UNICOS 9, a ksh 88e variant, is too buggy to
> | +correctly execute the libtool script.  Users are advised to install a
> | +modern shell such as GNU bash.
> | +
> 
> The notes about deficencies in specific platforms should probably stay in
> the readme though.

Hmmm... these notes are actually missing from HEAD and branch-2-0 now, and
certainly are valuable.  Maybe we should merge them back in from branch-1-5?

> Perhaps we should ask people to post to the list if libtool does not
> support building shared libraries on their combination of
> platform/compiler/linker etc.

Not for the purposes of README.  If we try, the README notes will be
perpetually out of date.  As for the pure reporting, then we should
continue to encourage posts to bug-libtool.

> Do we need to "warn" people of any of the changes coming in 2.0?

Hopefully not.  Libtool-2.0 shouldn't require any change to users'
configure.ac or Makefile.am's, it should just offer new features and
platforms.  Inevitably something will slip through the cracks, and
2.0.2 will need to fix those things.

Do we still support Autoconf 2.13 (on branch-1-5 and/or branch-2-0)?
If so, maybe we should explicitly drop that support in 2.0 to save
ourselves the additional testing?

Cheers,
        Gary.
-- 
Gary V. Vaughan      ())_.  address@hidden,gnu.org}
Research Scientist   ( '/   http://tkd.kicks-ass.net
GNU Hacker           / )=   http://www.gnu.org/software/libtool
Technical Author   `(_~)_   http://sources.redhat.com/autobook

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature