Re: CVS branch-2-0 R.I.P.

[Gary V. Vaughan]

Hi Peter,

On 26 Aug 2005, at 15:06, Peter Ekberg wrote:
> Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
> > Unless someone yells to the contrary real soon
> > now, I see no reason to continue to maintain branch-2-0 from
> > here on in.
>
> What is the requirements on the autotools for a libtoolized
> package from HEAD? I heard a rumor that cvs versions were
> required, at least at some point, is that really the case
> or was it just a rumor?

I've just successfully run 'make distcheck' on current libtool
HEAD on darwin, using very lightly patch autoconf-2.59, and
automake-1.9.6 (patches attached).  The resulting libtool
tarball should be installable and useable with considerably
older versions of the other autotools (there is a small series
of automake CVS revisions that won't work, but no released
versions... except possibly the extremely ancient).

> I can personally live with that the person doing the actual
> libtoolize needs cvs-autotools, but the rest of the
> developers on the package should not be required to use
> cvs-autotools.

Agreed.  Infact, apart from those of us bootstrapping a libtool
release, it is a bug for an installed released libtool (including
libtoolize) to require non-released autotools.

Cheers,
    Gary.
--  
Gary V. Vaughan      ())_.  gary@ 
{lilith.warpmail.net,gnu.org},address@hidden
Research Scientist   ( '/   http://www.tkd.kicks-ass.net
GNU Hacker           / )=   http://www.gnu.org/software/{libtool,m4}
Technical Author   `(_~)_   http://sources.redhat.com/autobook

autoconf-2.59--patch-1--honour-libobj-dir.patch
Description: Binary data

autoconf-2.59--patch-2--darwin-fortran-crt2-fix.patch
Description: Binary data

automake-1.9.6--patch-1--honour-libobj-dir.patch
Description: Binary data

PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part