On Mon, 2006-10-02 at 21:43 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 09:01:34PM +0200, Enrico Scholz wrote: > > Axel.Thimm@xxxxxxxxxx (Axel Thimm) writes: > > >> 2. somebody has to convince libtool people to apply this patch. Does not > > >> seem to be trivial either (look at the more or less trivial multilib > > >> patch in the Red Hat libtool-package which is still not applied). > > > > > > I wouldn't derive from one patch to another. What you perhaps consider > > > trivial and acceptable may be different for the upstream authors and > > > vice versa. I also didn't notice any discussion about the multilib > > > patch on the libtool list, so perhaps this wasn't even submitted? > > > > Dunno; patch exists for 4 years already so I would wonder when it was never > > submitted. I recall an initial version had been submitted several years ago. Due to lack of generality it had never been applied. The RH dev never showed up again afterwards. Seemingly he didn't like what he had got to hear and resorted to "worksforme". > > I thought, RH packagers were active in libtool development but I > > might be wrong here. Though libtool to a large extend is a RH invention (Alex O. had been one of its key developers), RH devs had been more or less absent in libtool development for many years. > Did you take a look at the multilib patch? It breaks other Linux > distributions, which is why it was never submitted to > libtool-patches. Let's not blame upstream for that. > > libtool has just received no love at all in Red Hat land for whatever > reason. I guess everybody agrees that libtool is mess, but ... it's still the best we've currently got, when it comes to portably building shared libs ;) Ralf -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
