Subject: Re: libavltree package
To: Alistair G. Crooks <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Bill Studenmund <email@example.com>
Date: 01/21/2000 11:35:01
On Fri, 21 Jan 2000, Alistair G. Crooks wrote:
> 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
That's strange. I compiled it on i386-current ELF, alpha-1.4, and
i386-1.4, and it was fine.
Also, I read packages.txt, and followed the LIBTOOL instructions verbatum.
> 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?
Mainly that until you mentioned the problems you had above, it seemed more
like a stylistic change than a bug fixing one, which came ight after I was
telling the author he should use libtool rather than embedding ranlib in
the PLIST & such. :-)
> 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.
My main experience here has been w/ xforms. Version 0.85 and 0.87 (which
we ship) had different API's but were numbered such that in terms of lib
#'s, you wouldn't expect it.
> 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.
?? You mean patch-aa ? It applied fine for me. ???