Re: TODO

[Daniel Reed]

On 2004-11-15T20:33-0800, Jacob Meuser wrote:
) their packages as soon as possible.  besides, it is arguable that
) libtool should be fairly well adapted to RedHat by default, the
) 1.5 branch has been around for a while now, and you are still
) shipping patches?

Until 1.5.10, we were actually patching 5 different areas of functionality ;)

The functionality provided by all but one of those patches has since been
integrated into [upstream] Libtool.


) > (For that to make sense, keep in mind that, outside of the GNOME world, the
) > autotools are used primarily at packaging time, not build time. Having a
) huh?  how can autoconf, or automake, or libtool be used at packaging
) time, and not build time?  and even if you could, why?

You do not need to have Autoconf installed to build an Autoconf-managed
package. Similarly, you do not need to have Libtool installed to build a
Libtool-managed library inside a libtoolized package, or to link against
already-installed Libtool-built libraries.

This is not true of, for example (to continue picking on it ;), PKGConfig,
which needs at least a non-general-purpose, externally-installed executable
(pkg-config) to function.


) besides, the biggest problem (assuming that OS/distros understand the
) reasons for not hacking autotools) is original distributors modifying
) libtool parts that are distributed with their software.  look and

In this case, bug reports going to the developer would be correct. The
concern over having an operating system modify the Libtool it ships is that
bug reports caused by the operating system's changes would incorrectly go to
the developer, or to the GNU lists.

-- 
Daniel Reed <address@hidden>    http://people.redhat.com/djr/   
http://naim.n.ml.org/
I'd say some people have no lives, but I'm the one who's going to
wallpaper his room in naim source in a few days. -- FalseName, EFnet #naim