Subject: Re: libtool, C++ shared libraries, and pthreads
To: Todd Vierling <>
From: Johnny C. Lam <>
List: tech-pkg
Date: 11/11/2004 17:45:41
Todd Vierling wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Nov 2004, Johnny C. Lam wrote:
>>We also need to bump PKGREVISIONs for all packages that for which
>>USE_LIBTOOL=yes and !empty(USE_LANGUAGES:Mc++),
> And pthreads.  There are no functional changes for non-threaded packages.
> Yes, there's a dependency_libs change, etc, but... is this so critical to
> bump for an OS version that is *not released yet*?  (Can you tell I'm
> gun-shy about big bump trails after the last big libtool thwack?  :)

Oh, yes, only if it also includes  I think we 
need the PKGREVISION bump because although 2.0 hasn't been released yet, 
there's a real userbase for the 2.0_BETA and 2.0_RCn releases (due to 
the length of time it's taking to get to the 2.0 release), and I don't 
think we should leave those users behind.

To me, this is analogous to why the kernel version gets bumped between 
releases: it notes a real change that users of -current need to be aware of.

>>These changes should also be fed back upstream to the libtool developers, too.
>>I think that 1.5.x development has stopped, but they'll need something like
>>this for the 2.x branch.
> I've been granulating our various changes, but just haven't had the time to
> feed them back up.  RSN.
> Development on libtool 1.5 hasn't halted, but new releases are very low
> priority.  Although if I manage to get enough changes into their tree,
> maybe....

Good luck!  pkgsrc must surely be one of the biggest users of libtool, 
so it's good if we can get our own changes back into their source tree.


	-- Johnny Lam <>