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

[Ralf Wildenhues]

Hi Gary,

* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Fri, Aug 26, 2005 at 09:42:23PM CEST:
> On 26 Aug 2005, at 16:38, Albert Chin wrote:
> >On Fri, Aug 26, 2005 at 04:26:57PM +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> >>* Peter Ekberg wrote on Fri, Aug 26, 2005 at 04:06:05PM CEST:
> >>>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?
> >>
> >>At the moment they are required after a cvs checkout of Libtool  
> >>HEAD for building itself.
> >
> >When will HEAD be able to bootstrap with the latest released
> >autoconf/automake?
> 
> Just as soon as autoconf and automake put out new releases ;-)

I beg to disagree.

> But really, we would have to back out a lot of patches from libtool
> HEAD (including another major reorganisation of the source tree)
> to make that work.

I beg to disagree again, to the utmost extent.  :)

> And the whole point of dropping branch-2-0 is to bring a 2.0 release
> closer.  The 3 patches I attached to an earlier mail are not too
> onerous.  With those applied to autoconf-2.59 and automake-1.9.6, you
> can bootstrap right now.

If the LIBOBJDIR issue is the only one: it's almost trivial to work
around it within Libtool.  Show at eleven on libtool-patches as soon as
I've tested my prototype 10-line patch enough.  :->

(Surely the darwin-related patch is still important; but so are a couple
of Solaris 10 issues fixed after 2.59.  But bootstrapping with released
autotools should *just work* other than that, after the patch.)

Cheers,
Ralf