Re: Libtool 1.5

[Bob Friesenhahn]

On Wed, 9 Oct 2002, Guido Draheim wrote:

> > In my experience, the 1.5 code-base is a solid product on systems
> > supported by 1.4.2, and provided that it is patched and proven to work
> > under MinGW and Darwin then 1.5 should be ready to release.
> >
>
> That's another argument. And since it was missed to push 1.4.3 out
> to the world when it was due, we can as well dump the work that
> I and others have done on the libtool-1-4 branch and well move
> ahead. Anyway, it would be nice if you'd find some nice words for
> those who were not on your branch of the developments, for which
> I understand you are proud of what you've achieved and that you
> want to have it out and recognized.

I do not mean to slight the supporters of a 1.4.3 release at all.  I
believe that supporters of a 1.4.3 release have only the best
intentions and that many libtool users (but not libtool itself) would
benefit from a 1.4.3 release.

To clarify things, until very recently I have served only the role of
a libtool user, not a libtool developer.  While I have used the
libtool code which would become 1.5 through its entire development, I
have contributed little to it.

The gestation period for 1.5 spans well over two years because for
quite a long time it lived in the multi-language-branch.  Developers
like Ossama Othman, Robert Boehne, and Gary Vaughan deserve credit for
this work.

Bob
======================================
Bob Friesenhahn
address@hidden
http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen