[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Rebooting the release process

From: Gary V. Vaughan
Subject: Re: Rebooting the release process
Date: Wed, 5 May 2010 12:17:38 +0700

On 5 May 2010, at 00:55, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> Hi Gary,

Hallo Ralf,

Let me start by clarifying the intent of my original post in this

"I'd really like to get back to making several releases
every year, just like we did back in the days of Libtool-1.2
through -1.4 (and earlier too IIRC, though I wasn't terribly
active until 1.2 so I can't be sure).

I don't even mind if we continue to start a new feature branch
once every 4 years, but Libtool made a lot more progress in
general with regular beta and stable releases back then."

> * Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Tue, May 04, 2010 at 09:59:16AM CEST:
>> 1. Check that the current HEAD is not totally broken on any of the
>> 20-some architectures I have access to.  And supply or solicit fixes
>> for any of those platforms anyone still cares about.
> there is probably not even need to do that.

Maybe not, but I'll feel a whole lot more confident about making a
new release if libtool at least builds and passes a few tests on the
bulk of modern UNIX systems...

> One thing that would be nice to have fixed is:
> - the libltdl 2.2.4(?) regression that prevents proper error messages
>  for failed loading of modules.

That would be nice.  But I've already spent several years trying to
untangle the spaghetti code of libltdl.  While I think I made some
progress, there's still that messy knot in the middle that even I don't
fully understand.  I'm not planning on spending anymore time on it...
I'd rather put that time into my rewrite.  That's not to say libltdl
incumbent shouldn't be fixed (after all, even with the best of
intentions, it might be a year or two before I have a viable
replacement - pity I didn't start it several years ago!), it's just
that I don't want to spend any more of _my_ time on it.

> Somebody noted (off-list) that our bootstrap leaves information specific
> from the person doing a release in the resulting tarball.  Specifically,
> you should not have set $GREP, $EGREP, $FGREP, $SED, and some other
> variables set in the bootstrap script, to some system-specific value,
> because that will make them end up in the generated libtool script as
> default value (and also a couple of other scripts).  These may cause
> errors for others.  This is probably a bug in the bootstrap script or in
> libltdl/config/general.m4sh, I haven't analyzed.

Okay thanks.  I'll take a look, though I don't think it's something that
would make 2.2.8 from HEAD worse than 2.2.6a in the wild, so I think it
can afford to wait until we've reved.

Gary V. Vaughan (address@hidden)

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]