Re: Libtool 1.4.3

[Pavel Roskin]

Hello!

> 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).

That's right unless somebody demonstrates otherwise.

> 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.

I must disagree here.  If we say that laziness (a.k.a. conservatism) is
not an excuse for the developers who use Autoconf and don't want to
upgrade to 2.5x, then twice as much it's not an excuse for Autoconf
developers, i.e. for a dozen of highly skilled programmers..

The legitimate reason to require the latest Autoconf is because it's good
for the _end_ users.  Another legitimate reason is because new tools are
more often used together (rather than e.g. old Autoconf with new Libtool),
and therefore they are better tested when used together.

There may be technical reasons to require latest Autoconf as well, but 
they are secondary IMHO.

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

Not in this list.

-- 
Regards,
Pavel Roskin