Re: branch-2-0 vs CVS HEAD

[Gary V. Vaughan]

Hallo Ralf,

Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 08:54:59PM CEST:
> > Ralf Wildenhues wrote on libtool-patches:
> >
> > > I kept quiet a while ago when Bob first suggested ditching the CVS
> > > branch-2-0 and releasing CVS HEAD as 2.0 after a bit of stabilization.
>
>
> > > The only problem is: I don't know how we can get CVS HEAD to work fine
> > > with released Autoconf/Automake versions.  ATM I'm not even sure which
> > > issues there are:
>
>
> > The showstopper for this plan is that libtool is holding up the next
> > release of all the other autotools[1], so we can't release HEAD as is 
> > without causing headaches for everyone else, because it relies on 
> > unreleased versions of the tools that are waiting for another libtool 
> > release.
>
>
> I have not understood the exact nature of the dependencies, I guess.

That's okay, I forget the details too... except that I keep getting
bashed for holding up M4-2.0 by Stepan and Akim!

> > branch-2-0 doesn't need to be perfect before we release it -- as long
> > as it has no known regressions, and good backwards compatibility, then
> > we can work out the wrinkles in patch releases.
>
> The problem is that CVS HEAD still *has* regressions:
> - enabling/disabling static/shared libs is broken
> - doing so for individual libs in the package is broken
>   (when using the 1.5.x macro names)

Gah... http://tkd.kicks-ass.net/WebWiki/GnuLibtoolProject/BugReports/
needs a record of these so I don't forget again...

>   (maybe actually committing your AU_ALIAS patch 2005-05-07 would help?)

I still have other outstanding patches?  Heck, guess I need to check for
unmerged stuff in address@hidden/libtool--gary--1.0!

> Furthermore, it has at least this serious bug in its new functionality:
> - using libltdl but not as subpackage does not work as advertised
>   (this bug is in part a documentation bug -- LTDL_INIT needs to be
>   suitably documented -- but also the AC_CONFIG_SUBDIRS call from
>   LT_WITH_LTDL needs to be made configurable)

Hmm... I'll look into this when --patch-23 is resolved.

> Then there are a bunch of smaller, mostly system-dependent issues, which
> I personally would be happy with working on past a release.

Is there a public record of these?  TODO file?  Search string for the
list archives?  next mail in this thread? ;-)

> branch-2-0 has these regressions as well (plus currently a couple more).

Same questions.

> > I'm genuinely optimistic that we can release 1.9h within 2 weeks, 
> > possibly less.  And maybe 2.0 can follow the week after if we've done
> > a good job of testing.

Okay, I'll take that back.  I thought patch-23 was the last regression :-(

> Then there is one thing I don't understand: How can you get 2.0 to work
> with Autoconf-2.59 and Automake-1.9.6, if that isn't possible with CVS
> HEAD?  Either I'm misunderstanding, or you'll just have to find a new
> set of fixes for branch-2-0 than for CVS HEAD, because those all rely on
> newer Autoconf/Automake.

branch-2-0 doesn't currently need CVS autotools (just lightly patched
2.59 and 1.9.6).  I can backport patch-23 without changing that.

> > [1] Autoconf-2.60 needs M4-2.0 needs Libtool-2.0
>
>
> Why does Autoconf-2.60 need M4-2.0, BTW?

I forget.  Perhaps it was needing to be able to change the macro search
path from m4 code?  Someone on the Autoconf list will remember.

> > (ISTR that Automake-1.10 is waiting on something here too, but I can't
> > find a record of it in the archives).

Actually, I think automake was waiting on the m4 macro search path 
improvements, and autoconf-2.60 needs automake-1.10.  Someone on the
Automake list will remember.

> I see this whole issue as another reason to push for regular point
> releases, and general releases more often.  I like the fact that
> Automake has had the former up to now.

Agreed.  Also a reason why none of the tools should make a stable 
release that needs a CVS revision of any of the others.  Actually, we 
are doing good in respect of point releases with our stable 1.5 branch,
and in respect of CVS revision dependencies with our future stable 2.0
branch. *And* we are doing a better job of backward compatibility than
either Automake or Autoconf have historically. :-D

Cheers,
        Gary.
--
Gary V. Vaughan      ())_.  address@hidden,gnu.org}
Research Scientist   ( '/   http://tkd.kicks-ass.net
GNU Hacker           / )=   http://www.gnu.org/software/libtool
Technical Author   `(_~)_   http://sources.redhat.com/autobook

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature