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,
> 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.

	Cheers,

	-- Johnny Lam <jlam@buildlink.org>