Re: Is libtool being maintained at all?

[Dalibor Topic]

Hi Bob,

thank you very much for your quick reply, and taking my concerns seriously.

Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Jul 2003, Dalibor Topic wrote:
>
>
> > Salut Nicholas, hello Bob,
> >
> > The somewhat bad part is that we have discovered several problems with
> > libtool 1.5, ranging from hour-long configure script checks to real bugs
> > leading to crashes. We are getting regular bug reports for libtool 1.5,
> > and fortunately, they are often accompanied by patches. ;)
> >
> > My humble attempts at getting the attention of libtool developers to our
> > small and simple patches have so far failed to receive *any* response
> > from libtool maintainers for more than a month now, despite repeated
> > postings to both address@hidden and address@hidden I find
> > that situation quite frustrating.
>
>
> This is not quite true.  I am a libtool maintainer.  I am not as

I'm sorry about my confusing wording. While I have received interesting 
replys to my critique of the process, I have not received a response on 
the patch itself, except from an ironical remark about open source 
developers and vacation. ;)

> well-versed as some of the other maintainers so if a more experienced
> maintainer is willing to handle an issue, that is fine with me.  What
> is true is that there have been no updates to libtool since June 25th.

> I will attempt to find time to apply the outstanding libtool patches.

Thank you, that would be great.

> I won't apply a patch if it comes from a non-current libtool, I don't
> understand the patch, or it is risky and I am unable to validate it.

Our patches are against libtool 1.5, I hope that's current enough. 
Please don't hesitate to contact me either on the libtool and kaffe 
mailing lists, or in private, if you have problems understanding our 
patches. I can connect you with the original authors and reporters.

> > If that's not possible, maybe a 'most general unified' fork of libtool
> > under a different umbrella could be a temporary, egcs-like solution to
> > what I percieve to be a problem in the making.
>
>
> A fork is totally unnecessary.  Libtool maintainers seem to ebb and
> flow like the tide. Perhaps we are simply in an "ebb" period at the
> moment.  If existing maintainers permanently die off, then new
> volunteers can become mainainers.  Becoming a maintainer involves
> signing a contract with the FSF (takes two or three weeks) and being
> set up with CVS commit privileges.

I hope that the tide turns, and the current libtool maintainers don't 
'die off'. If current libtool maintainers plan to withdraw from libtool, 
it would be nice if they took some care about 'raising' new maintainers. 
I have no ambition of becoming a GNU libtool maintainer, I just want to 
contribute some small patches. That seems to be hard enough, so I can't 
imagine how hard it is to get larger changes accepted. ;)

You, the libtool maintainers, have done a great job on libtool's code so 
far. I believe that it's in everyone's best interest if you could 
continue improving libtool with the support of your users.

On a side note, can I assume that all maintainers are listed in the 
AUTHORS file?

cheers,
dalibor topic