Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 01:47:03 +0200 From: "Andrew W. Nosenko" <andrew.w.nosenko@gmail.com> To: Ade Lovett <ade@freebsd.org> Cc: autotools@freebsd.org, FreeBSD Ports <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Removal of libtool-2.4 in favor of libtool-2.2, why? Message-ID: <AANLkTikDL4XHRu45cSA2xXuSrEq=TVvbdZ0hgzVhoD52@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <9B258C60-C910-471E-9CE7-4CC6D9A99511@FreeBSD.org> References: <AANLkTimFOZjOYsb2=H=mCcn1T77K2vWmeBrac9USoBi1@mail.gmail.com> <9B258C60-C910-471E-9CE7-4CC6D9A99511@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 01:13, Ade Lovett <ade@freebsd.org> wrote: > > On Jan 11, 2011, at 16:21 , Andrew W. Nosenko wrote: >> Can I ask autotool's maintainer(s) (sorry, it hard to determine >> human's name from autotools@ alias) to upgrade devel/libtool from >> libtool-2.2 to libtool-2.4 and, as consequence and for completeness, >> libltdl-2.2 to libtool-2.4? > > 1. =A0devel/libtool24 (and devel/libltdl24) were never integrated into th= e ports tree > > 2. =A0as is usual with these things, a whole bunch of stuff tends to brea= k on each update, requiring numerous experimental runs to determine and fix= issues (don't even _ask_ about gnu make 3.81->3.82) > > 3. =A0not everything that uses libtool also uses autoconf > > 4. =A0a whole bunch of other work was doing to clean up massive over-infe= station of autotools versions, leaving us with a legacy and a current versi= on for autoconf/automake, and a lot less intrusive (in terms of the ports t= ree itself) patching in the future > > 5. =A0there was absolutely no way to get another set of experimental runs= in for the libtool 2.2->2.4 conversion before ... > > 6. =A0... the ports freeze we are now in for 7.4 and 8.2, during which ti= me no infrastructural and sweeping changes are permitted to give us some ch= ance at generating a full package set for these releases > > 7. =A0even limited local testing shows that libtool-2.4 is not backwards-= compatible with 2.2.x (there's a shocker) :-(( The sad surprise :-( Can you point me to example? Anything from the NEWS and google search results doesn't point me to the somethig thet could to be real-live problem... And, of course, I'm uderstand point of view that even little chance to break even little thing overweights kilometers of warnings at this stage. Warnings can be simple grep'ed out, while broken build... is a broken build. > > 8. =A0we're not human; =A0even if we were at some point, after dealing wi= th this stuff, not a chance. > > So, yes, it'll eventually happen; =A0no, it won't happen immediately; =A0= yes, it'll most likely happen soon(tm) after 7.4 and 8.2; =A0yes, it'll def= initely be a painful and annoying process as always. > > -aDe > > --=20 Andrew W. Nosenko <andrew.w.nosenko@gmail.com>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AANLkTikDL4XHRu45cSA2xXuSrEq=TVvbdZ0hgzVhoD52>