Re: FYI: libtool.m4 removal problem

[Bob Friesenhahn]

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004, Daniel Reed wrote:

> On 2004-12-18T11:56-0600, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> ) 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
> ) > 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.
>
> I respectfully, but authoritatively, disagree.

Within his sphere of influence, Chuck is also able to exert 
"authoritative" and knowledgeable opinions.

It seems that there is a difference between distribution 
maintainership approaches.  Some maintainers attempt to modify each 
package so that its build meets a particular baseline (e.g. force one 
version of libtoolize, automake, autoconf), while other maintainers 
attempt to work with the packages as delivered so that they require 
minimal modification.

> Being backwards compatible in syntax is worth much, much more to me, as a
> distributor, than supporting multiple simultaneous installs.

I certainly agree that there is substantial value to backwards 
compatible syntax, but it does not ensure that the actual behavior of 
the older and newer versions will be the same.

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