Re: Libtool release plan

[Ralf Wildenhues]

Hi Olly,

* Olly Betts wrote on Tue, May 16, 2006 at 01:48:55AM CEST:
> On 2006-05-10, Ralf Wildenhues <address@hidden> wrote:
> > * Olly Betts wrote on Wed, May 10, 2006 at 04:38:08PM CEST:
> 
> > I know Libtool-1.5.24 is important to get out, due to the regressions I
> > put in 1.5.22.  And it will be my primary focus once Autoconf-2.60 is
> > done.  However, there are some other systems that need fixes, HP-UX
> > being one of them;
> 
> HP-UX is looking good for me with this patch:
> 
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gnu.libtool.general/7076/focus=7083

Yes, but a couple of issues on HP-UX are still pending; and some for w32.
I'll probably attack them in two batches.  (I'm not firm enough with
either of them without some reading and digging; and I may be waiting
for Charles and Bruno to hash out things in their current discussion
on bug-gnu-gettext aka bug-gnu-utils; thanks to Eric for the pointer!)

> Though perhaps there are also problems with features I don't make use
> of.

Not very many, luckily.

> > The good thing being that I expect Autoconf-2.60 to be done this month.
> 
> Are the autoconf and libtool trees in a sufficiently stable state that
> it would be useful for me to try building with them to shake out
> problems and help make the upcoming releases better?  If so, what's
> best to use for autoconf - CVS HEAD or the autoconf 2.69c tarball?

Just try CVS HEAD Autoconf; but they are not very far apart.
Be sure to read NEWS (or the 2.59c announcement), though.

> I have a fairly broad collection of automated test builds, and I've just
> made a release so it wouldn't be disruptive to switch the autobuilding
> to use non-release versions of autoconf and libtool:

Feel free, any kind of feedback is helpful.  Esp. we're looking for
packages that are broken by the new Autoconf, so that unintended
incompatibilities can be fixed before the release.

Cheers,
Ralf