This is the mail archive of the newlib@sourceware.org mailing list for the newlib project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Patch to update libtool in GCC and Src trees


libtool@cwilson.fastmail.fm wrote:
I thought the goal (policy?) was
for the src and gcc trees to use only:
 (1) official released versions of external tools/libraries
 (2) or imported snapshots of said external tools/libraries taken
 directly from those external project's development tree

Sure -- my proposal was only a temporary measure before importing top-of-tree libtool. Steve said it was a one liner, but I thought it was one line compared to gcc/src, not compared to the original checkin!


Perhaps Steve's current effort will be the last libtool import until
libtool releases its next major version (aka 2.0 or 2.2 or whatever they
decide to call it). Or maybe there will be future re-imports from
libtool CVS every few months or so: annoying, but not especially trying
if they are relatively infrequent. Especially as I expect such
re-imports will be much less disruptive than THIS major change.

I would expect relatively frequent (once per month?) but absolutely non-disruptive imports until the next libtool release; then, we should track the corresponding stable releases.


To reassure Jeff, I will remark that the conversion to 2.59/1.9 actually started as 2.54/1.6, and there were basically no disruptive changes in autoconf/automake during these releases (2.54 to 2.59 for autoconf, 1.6 to 1.9 for automake). And this libtool change is basically the completion of the complex transition to autoconf 2.59 -- which explains the trouble it's causing.

My only request to the libtool team, is to keep it working with 2.59 for a while and not require 2.61, because that will be another relatively complex update for gcc/src (though not as much as from 2.13 to 2.59).

Or re-import libtool "too often" for your liking

Please complain if this is the case, but I hope that the libtool guys also don't do any disruptive changes for well-supported targets (i686-linux) when the first stable release in years is in sight...


, or litter <toplevel>/m4/ with a bunch of "fixes" to compensate
for shortcomings of the carved-in-stone ac-2.59/am-1.9.6.

So far, we have only one bugfix in 2.60+ that needs to be worked around because we use 2.59, and I'm confident very few (if any) will be needed.


Paolo, who would prefer autoconf maintainers to update major version numbers more eagerly!


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]