Status of libtool 2.2.X?
braden at endoframe.com
Mon Oct 13 06:48:14 UTC 2008
On Mon, 2008-10-13 at 01:26 -0400, D. Hugh Redelmeier wrote:
> | From: Braden McDaniel <braden at endoframe.com>
> | Yes, but the kind of patches that should be sent upstream are not the
> | ones resulting in 300 busted packages from a libtool upgrade. We're
> | talking about patches applied by a specfile build.
> Could you characterize the problems that cause 300 busted packages?
I couldn't. I hope Karsten Hopp will (the "300" figure comes from him);
he's said he's preparing a wiki page with this information. (See
earlier in this thread.)
> Naive questions:
> - Might a reasonable patch to libtool 2.2 fix a lot of these problems?
> (And no, I don't mean "patch it back to 2.1.")
I don't know. (And FYI, Fedora never shipped 2.1; I think it wasn't
released. I think the 2.2 series succeeds the 1.5 one.)
> - Would it make sense to allow multiple versions of libtools co-exist
> on a system and allow a .spec declaration of some kind specify which
> to use?
That possibility has been floated; and things might even be leaning that
way. See bug 459387.
I don't have an objection to that approach as long as "libtoolize" (and
similar) refers to the latest version of the tool--just as "autoconf" or
"automake" refer to the latest versions of those tools. And as long as
that's the case, specfiles for libtool2-incompatible packages that run
autoreconf or libtoolize will need to make at least minor changes to
request the old version.
Braden McDaniel e-mail: <braden at endoframe.com>
<http://endoframe.com> Jabber: <braden at jabber.org>
More information about the devel