Subject: Re: libtool, C++ shared libraries, and pthreads
To: Todd Vierling <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Johnny C. Lam <email@example.com>
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 pthread.buildlink3.mk. 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,
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 <firstname.lastname@example.org>