[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Libtool 1.4.3

From: Bernd Jendrissek
Subject: Re: Libtool 1.4.3
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 20:31:18 +0200

On Tue, Oct 08, 2002 at 11:36:40AM -0500, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> On 8 Oct 2002, Akim Demaille wrote:
> > There is one big question which must be answered first: will it have
> > to be Autoconf 2.13 compatible?
> >
> > I *strongly* suggest that it must not.  It should AC_PREREQ 2.54
> > immediately.  Then, I'm fine with checking the M4 code and making it
> > up to date.  If needed, I'll wrap a 2.55 with whatever is needed to
> > have Libtool work better with Autoconf.
> I agree.  I can't imagine why anyone would want to use an antique
> version of Autoconf which dates from 1996.

me too!  :)

People who stick to the 2.13 guns can stick to the libtool 1.3.3/whatever
guns.  I see no reason why *new* code (third-party packages) should require
a *new* libtool but an *old* autoconf.  And the argument that "2.13 works"
doesn't fly by me: "so does 1.4.2" (or whatever the last libtool with near
universal acceptance was).

I don't think anyone should create themselves a future maintenance burden
for the sake of packages that will respond simply by relying on that
maintenance to continue, instead of getting with the 2.5x program.  Hey,
if they're happy with an antique autoconf, they should be happy with an
antique libtool.  I don't see many messages along the lines of "linux
kernel 2.0.30 doesn't support my Gigabit Ethernet card!"  (Actually, I
have 2.0.30 at home, on a 486 with 5MB ram. :)

I'll probably be flamed to hell and back now...

address@hidden is probably better to bookmark than any
employer-specific email address I may have appearing in the headers.
  Vanity page:  [seems down last few days]

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]