Re: Darwin patches?

[Gary V. Vaughan]

Hi!

On Thu, Oct 04, 2001 at 05:09:33PM -0500, scott hutinger wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Oct 2001, Max Horn wrote:
> > >There is one patch against libtool for the benefit of Darwin, that I
> > >have had to rejected because it causes regressions for most other
> > >platforms.  You should be able to find the thread in the list archives.
> > 
> > That patch is actually bad even on darwin. As Christoph Pfisterer and 
> > I posted here various time (but sadly, there never was a reply),

Sorry.  I'm utterly snowed with other responsibilities (for at least
the next 2 weeks) so I libtool has suffered a little from my lack of
attention.

> > there seems to be a bit more fundamental libtool issue regarding 
> > conveniance libs. The -all_load flag just doesn't do it, and libtool 
> > has this habit of listing convenience libs twice on the command line 
> > used to invoke the linker, causing loads of "multiple definitions" 
> > errors
> 
> Ok, cdemo tests fail.

Agreed.  I expect this is one of the "weekend of hacking" problems
which requires some time to unravel and fix... I was kind of hoping
someone else would step up to the plate and do the legwork.

> What are the requirements from admin for
> modification to cdemo if needed?  Sorry I have to ask, sometimes people
> have various reasons for not allowing specific modifications.

I am not sure what you mean.  But there is a page about contributing
to libtool here:  http://www.gnu.org/software/libtool/contribute.html

The minimum requirement for a patch to be accepted is approximately:
fixes a problem you are experiencing on your host, passes visual
inspection by one of the maintainers, causes no regressions on the
committers host.

HTH,
        Gary.
-- 
  ())_. Gary V. Vaughan     gary@(oranda.demon.co.uk|gnu.org)
  ( '/  Research Scientist  http://www.oranda.demon.co.uk       ,_())____
  / )=  GNU Hacker          http://www.gnu.org/software/libtool  \'      `&
`(_~)_  Tech' Author        http://sources.redhat.com/autobook   =`---d__/