Re: README/NEWS

[Peter O'Gorman]

Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
[good stuff snipped]
> > 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 perpetually out of date.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.

I meant, but should've said, as a kind of call for help. To get more 
platforms/toolchains supported. I agree that keeping a list of unsupported 
platforms in the readme is silly :)

> > 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.

Right now, libtool-2.0 will require changes to some people's configure.ac 
scripts. I know of a few projects that call the generated libtool script for 
various reasons during configure. I would behoove us to find these project 
maintainers and see if we can accomodate their needs. There may be some 
other issues that we simply haven't thought about yet, then again we can't 
add issues we haven't thought about to the readme, can we? never mind me, 
still thinking aloud (and not very clearly).

> 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?

As far as I am aware branch-1-5 supports it, I haven't tried (thus saving on 
testing?).

Peter
--
Peter O'Gorman - http://www.pogma.com