Re: Windows Patches [Was: GNU Libtool 2.2.8 released (stable)]

[Christopher Hulbert]

On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 9:24 AM, Peter Rosin <address@hidden> wrote:
> Hi Christopher!
>
> Den 2010-06-08 15:06 skrev Christopher Hulbert:
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 7:40 AM, Gary V. Vaughan<address@hidden>  wrote:
>>>
>>> I think it important to merge pr-msvc-support into master one way or
>>> another so that it doesn't get ignored for any longer than it has
>>> already.
>>
>> I would like it to not get ignore longer either, but just looking at
>> the branch after pulling, I still don't see a hint of support for
>> either Intel or PGI compilers on windows, both of which my changes
>> support. That means I will likely have to continue to keep a local
>> branch with all my changes. In addition, I might have to work around
>> any issues created from the merge of the pr-msvc-support branch.
>
> So, me working around issus with your patches is better exactly how?

My apologies if that is what you took away from what I said. What I
meant is that it is more work than the status quo. I can keep up with
libtool master right now with ease, I don't know what would happen
after the pr-msvc-branch was merged. I would like it if the few people
interested in Windows support would collaborate more (more on that
below).

>
>> Obviously making more work for 1 person shouldn't stop libtool
>> progress, but I think taking the time to come up with a plan on what
>> will be supported when the branch is merged in and making it useful
>> for people like me using other native Windows compilers (again, Intel
>> and PGI) would be nice. No matter what, I am sure I can work
>> with/around whatever happens, but I would certainly prefer that the
>> official libtool have more Windows support than at least I can see
>> from the pr-msvc-support branch.
>
> Hey, I have more stuff that I would like to add, but given that it
> has been virtually impossible to get any patch review for Windows stuff
> (Ralf has been the only one doing it, thanks!), maybe, just maybe,
> we shouldn't add too much to the plate? Which is also the reason why
> I have been mostly ignoring anything new on the Windows front. Sorry
> about the silence.

I agree that it has been hard to get any patch for Windows support
reviewed. I think the lack of participation by people like myself who
are interested in libtool on Windows has contributed to this. On the
other hand, I would hardly consider myself capable of reviewing such
patches. Libtool is a complex package that I know only enough to hack
and get myself in trouble.

>
> There is already enough pending stuff, IMHO. Let's just get that out
> the door first. That may be frustrating for you, but the alternative
> is frustrating for me which is worse - of course :-)
>
> I've had enough frustration here, methinks.

Sorry for my contribution to your frustration. I would just like to
see windows support in the mainstream to be done right, and the
attitude of "just get that out the door first" doesn't seem to be an
approach in the right direction. I realize you have done a lot of work
on that branch, and I am not trying to subvert it or criticize it. I
was just trying to make the Windows libtool support better.

I guess in the end, it doesn't matter to me. I will continue to do
whatever I am doing. Sorry for the noise.

Chris

>
> Cheers,
> Peter
>