Re: Libtool 1.5

[Albert Chin]

On Wed, Oct 09, 2002 at 12:29:44PM -0500, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> 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.

I won't debate the value of 1.5. Are developers moving to autoconf
2.5x in droves? I think the developers interested in moving to 2.5x
will be interested in a 1.5 release as it will force them to move to
2.5x. However, for those that don't, I support the 1.4.3 interim
release for those wishing to remain at 2.13 for whatever reason.

If someone is willing to spin the release, I'd like to see us move
ahead with a 1.4.3.

-- 
albert chin (address@hidden)