Subject: libavltree package
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Alistair G. Crooks <email@example.com>
Date: 01/21/2000 05:31:40
No, it doesn't really matter.
Except that the package didn't build with the libtool modifications
that were there, for me, on this box. It made the .o and .lo files
fine, and just stopped there. I'm sure that, if I have the problem
here, then others will have the same problem as well. So, rather
than wade through the libtool stuff, I changed it to use a BSD-style
Makefile, which, to me, seems much more elegant, because that way,
it just works for us in pkgsrc. Also, I use bmake on NetBSD and
Solaris, and I saw that you committed changes to make bmake compile
on Irix, so what's the problem?
I changed the shared lib number to match the version number of the
package - I hadn't realised you wanted it decoupled. Usually,
version numbers on the distfiles change much more frequently than
changes to API necessitating a bump in the library version, (and
for that I would expect a bump in the version number on the distfile
too). That's why I changed it. I'd prefer it if the library version
shadowed the distfile version, but it's not a biggy.
Please feel free to change it back to using libtool, if you want,
but please also ensure that everything is built properly when you
Oh, and the original libtool patch couldn't be applied, either, so
please feel free to fix that while you're at it.
From: Bill Studenmund [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Donnerstag, 20. Januar 2000 19:28
To: Alistair G. Crooks
Subject: Re: CVS commit: pkgsrc
On Thu, 20 Jan 2000, Alistair G. Crooks wrote:
> Module Name: pkgsrc
> Committed By: agc
> Date: Thu Jan 20 11:13:05 UTC 2000
> Modified Files:
> pkgsrc/devel/avltree: Makefile
> pkgsrc/devel/avltree/files: patch-sum
> pkgsrc/devel/avltree/patches: patch-aa
> pkgsrc/devel/avltree/pkg: PLIST
> Log Message:
> There are times when libtool is complete overkill. This is one of them.
> Use a BSD-style Makefile for this package.
Does it really matter?
The reason this package used libtool is that we work with a diverse set of
machines around here (NetBSD, Solaris, SGI, and probably others as time
goes by), and I'm trying to instill good programming/packaging practices.
libtool is much better than the alternatives.
Also, the package was installing lib version 1.0. Is there a particular
reason you bumped it to 1.1? I'd picked 1.0 to decouple the shared lib
numbering from the tar file & package numbering since I'm not 100% sure
that the tar file will get renumbered like a shared lib should.