Re: FYI: libtool.m4 removal problem

[Bob Friesenhahn]

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> >             I will not be shipping multiple versions of Libtool, either,
> > which means we will continue shipping only out of branch-1-5 until newer
> > versions accept the exact syntax used by 1.5 and earlier
>
> So far I would consider each non-backwards compatible change in Libtool
> a bug (which is one reason branch-2-0 and HEAD are not released).  With
> respect to unpatched releases, that is.

It seems that the decision was made to completely replace the libtool 
configuration interfaces.  I was not aware that this decision was 
actually hindering the release of libtool 2.0.  Certainly, it would be 
nice if the old configuration interfaces still worked but if course 
this does not encourage users to transition to the new interfaces. 
It is actually pretty easy to update existing configure scripts, but 
the libtool documentation could make this more clear by providing 
complete before and after examples.

> Maintenance burden for Libtool would likely be higher than for Automake,
> too, if only because Libtool constantly has to be adapted to new systems.
>
> On the other hand, Chuck's argument is a convincing one:  /if/ newer
> Libtool provides an upgrade obstacle to software packages at all, it
> it much better to allow for parallel installations than not.  There's
> little value in having distributors work out how to do parallel
> installations if anybody needs these.  I still had the hope that we
> could just get away *without* the need.

I agree with Chuck that supporting parallel installs will help get 
newer libtools into distributions faster.

Bob
======================================
Bob Friesenhahn
address@hidden
http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen