On Sat, 2004-01-17 at 20:24, Henning Makholm wrote: > So I'm going to repeat the scan for the 721 packages where signs of > libtool 1.4 were found, this time looking for autoconf2.13-generated > configure scripts. > > Anybody got a good automatic way of checking whether a configure.in > will require nontrivial porting for use on 2.5x? > Run autoupdate and see if it explodes? > Therefore, I hold that if we remove libtool1.4, then it becomes a bug > if the internal configuration infrastructure in a package cannot be > rebuilt without having libtool1.4 installed. I'm not ready to argue > that it would be an RC bug, but I'm quite convinced it should be a bug > unless the configure.in needs more than a few very obvious changes to > port. > There isn't any reason you'd want to run libtoolize again though, unless you intend to update to 1.5. Once you've done it, you never have to do it again unless you do something foolish like remove the files it adds. And with a package that old you should be pretty careful when running aclocal, as you'll end up with all sorts of 2.5x requirements if you don't, so you'd only lose the old libtool.m4 contents if you were slapdash. So what did you need the libtool1.4 package for, again? :-) Scott -- Have you ever, ever felt like this? Had strange things happen? Are you going round the twist?
Description: This is a digitally signed message part