Re: last minute fixes

[Gary V . Vaughan]

On Monday 23 April 2001  1:36 pm, Thomas Tanner wrote:
> Hi

Hi Thomas!

>  this patch contains my last minute fixes for libtool 1.4

Thanks.

>  Feel free to commit it - I don't have CVS/SSH access yet :(

You should have.  I added your account with write access to savannah about a 
day after Alexandre and I first told you we couldn't log in.

>  BTW: The magic duplicates removal code I introduced more than one
>  year ago is supposed to work for both shared and static libraries on
>  every platform! However, this only applies to the HEAD branch.
>  I didn't have the time to check the changes in ILD code of the
>  MLB branch yet. Some assumptions in the code might not be true for MLB.

I am worried about adding such deep changes to the tree just before our first 
full release in 2 years.  Testing seems to have been moderately successful, 
so I'd like to release current HEAD as libtool-1.4.

As soon as the release is out, we will temporarily have 3 branches (HEAD, 
branch-1-4, and MLB) so that is probably a bad time to commit these patches.  

Alexandre will be making a 2 stage merge from MLB into HEAD:  an initial 
merge to get the core functionality into HEAD and to allow me to eliminate 
ltconfig in MLB without making yet another branch; and then a final merge 
once ltconfig removal has been resolved.  If you could apply your patches 
(one at a time) simultaneously to branch-1-4 and HEAD sometime after the 
initial merge that ought to be the least work.  I hope that is okay?

To minimise divergence between MLB and HEAD, we have not been committing 
patches to either branch until we have both ports, or the patch makes no 
sense on the other.  It has become a real PITA porting every tiny little 
patch back and forth between HEAD libtool.m4 and MLB 
ltconfig.in/ltcf-c.sh/ltcf-gxx.sh/ltcf-gcj.sh before committing, but it is a 
necessary evil if we are not going to lose a whole bunch of code when we try 
to merge the two.  Just incase I didn't say it enough already:  I am *really* 
*really* looking forward to having a single development branch, so that we 
need only port bugfixes forward.

>  Please also read the notes about the libltdl bugs in TODO.
>  They probably require some larger changes (maybe even in the dlloader
>  interface?). Do we really want to release 1.4 with such bugs?

After 2 years, I think we should really release something, or it will never 
happen!  I plan to perform a monthly release from HEAD after 1.4, with 
release candidate branches on demand before a new major development is 
committed, and patch releases from the most recent release branch on demand.

Cheers,
        Gary.
-- 
  ___              _   ___   __              _         mailto: address@hidden
 / __|__ _ _ ___ _| | / / | / /_ _ _  _ __ _| |_  __ _ ___       address@hidden
| (_ / _` | '_|// / |/ /| |/ / _` | || / _` | ' \/ _` | _ \
 \___\__,_|_|\_, /|___(_)___/\__,_|\_,_\__, |_||_\__,_|//_/
home page:  /___/                      /___/                  gpg public key:
http://www.oranda.demon.co.uk           http://www.oranda.demon.co.uk/key.asc