[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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:
>    <http://people.debian.org/~keybuk/libtool1.4-rdepends.txt>

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It's no longer maintained upstream, partly buggy, and rarely used.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 
remove it:
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).

> Scott



       "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

Reply to: