Re: Removal of libtool1.4
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 12:03:16AM +0000, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> II: And now some facts about its use in Debian:
> 1) No package Depends on it; only 11 packages Build-Depend on it:
Even better, there are only 10 packages (you counted freeradius twice).
> III: Finally, what's wrong with it?
> And the silly thing is, it's not actually that *hard* to update lagging
> software to use Autoconf 2.5x, the autoupdate tool that comes with it
> does a reasonable enough job to get you most of the way there. It would
> be far better, given I and III, for those few remaining pieces of
> software currently using Libtool 1.4 (and Autoconf 2.13) to update.
> Talk over, let the wars begin!
The reasons you mentioned against keeping libtool1.4 are abbreviated:
It's no longer maintained upstream, partly buggy, and rarely used.
But it seems there is no big harm if libtool1.4 stays in Debian (e.g. it
doesn't include a security hole).
As long as at least _one_ package build depends on it, you shouldn't
Consider the situation that for Debian 3.1 a security update is required
for cyrus-sasl or cyrus-sasl2, but it's impossible to fulfill the build
dependencies of this package inside Debian 3.1.
I've checked cyrus-sasl. In this package it's perhaps not impossible,
but some work that requires autoconf knowledge to fix it to work with
autoconf 2.5x .
Please don't remove libtool1.4 until no package in unstable has a build
dependency on libtool1.4 (or all remaining packages have tested patches
in the BTS).
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed