[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: libtool-2.0 release
From: |
Ralf Wildenhues |
Subject: |
Re: libtool-2.0 release |
Date: |
Fri, 3 Feb 2006 16:03:22 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.11 |
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 03:43:11PM CET:
>
> [Is the personal Cc: okay? The list lag is so long that I've gotten into
> the habit of Cc:ing you back in so you don't have to wait half a day to
> get this.]
Yes, surely. There was one point in time where I fixed my gnu.org
subscriptions to do what I want for my mail setup, and since then I
could stop bothering about this for mails sent to me.
List lag is interesting though: it can vary between several hours and
less than a minute within the time frame of 12 hours. I am at a loss
how to explain this, maybe it's fast when the US-based spammers go to
sleep. ;->
> > > It means that LT_WITH_LTDL in configure.ac that mentions neither
> > > LTDL_CONVENIENCE nor LTDL_INSTALLABLE doesn't build libltdl at all.
> > > I have a start to a fix for this.
> >
> > Well, so is that really a bug?
> I originally wrote LT_WITH_LTDL as a convenience wrapper for AC_LIB_LTDL
> in CVS M4, and realised that it was useful enough to almost all clients
> of libltdl that it should probably belong in the Libtool distribution...
> There is definitely a documentation bug (added to RoadMap) that it is
> still undocumented.
It's not LT_WITH_LTDL that is undocumented. LTDL_INIT is.
> The real question then is whether LT_WITH_LTDL alone
> should be equivalent to LTDL_CONVENIENCE plus LTDL_INIT (overridable
> with LTDL_INSTALLABLE) or whether it should be *in addition* to all that.
Right.
> I'm leaning toward the former, but either way the current situation of
> being like LTDL_INIT plus --with-ltdl processing is counter-intuitive.
> I'll post a documentation patch to help us define the semantics clearly,
> and then fix the code to implement what we decide upon.
Good.
> >>> - I know about a couple more tweaks necessary for HEAD libtoolize
> >>> and Bob has a couple of failures I (or somebody else) need to track
> >>> down.
> >> Agreed. If you put them on the RoadMap, I might get to them before you.
> >
> > Well, this comment of Bob completely mystifies me:
> > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gnu.libtool.patches/6582
> > I believe in that thread there were more issues mentioned.
>
> Can you transcribe them to the RoadMap once we've got clarification on
> the issue from Bob please?
OK. I'll ask him to test again after patch-6 is in (or test myself).
> > Ahh, and there was another one: the breakage on need_lib_prefix systems.
> > I think we did not mark it release-blocking, but I still would like to
> > test Pierre's patch extensively and use it if it turns out good:
> > otherwise libltdl will be completely useless on e.g. BeOS.
>
> Okay. Is that a long standing bug, or a regression? Please mark the
> RoadMap accordingly :-)
Well, both. Apparently dlpreloading has never worked on need_lib_prefix
systems, so that is long-standing. Now that libltdl requires working
dlpreloading, it fails to work completely, while in 1.5.x it at least
worked in some cases. From a user POV, that's a regression, from a
Libtool developer POV it's long-standing. ;-)
> Just discovered yet another in my patch queue (needs another round of
> testing before I post): make installcheck currently always fails in
> trees that used 'libtoolize --ltdl' in some modes. (Added to RoadMap).
OK.
Cheers,
Ralf
- Re: per-deplib static/dynamic flags, (continued)
Re: per-deplib static/dynamic flags, Ralf Wildenhues, 2006/02/02
- libtool-2.0 release [WAS per-deplib static/dynamic flags], Gary V. Vaughan, 2006/02/02
- Re: libtool-2.0 release [WAS per-deplib static/dynamic flags], Bob Friesenhahn, 2006/02/02
- Re: libtool-2.0 release, Ralf Wildenhues, 2006/02/02
- Re: libtool-2.0 release, Gary V. Vaughan, 2006/02/03
- Re: libtool-2.0 release, Ralf Wildenhues, 2006/02/03
- Re: libtool-2.0 release, Gary V. Vaughan, 2006/02/03
- Re: libtool-2.0 release,
Ralf Wildenhues <=
- Re: libtool-2.0 release, Bob Friesenhahn, 2006/02/03
Re: libtool-2.0 release, Ralf Wildenhues, 2006/02/10