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

Bug#302484: libtool: Is any work in progress?



On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 10:23:02AM +0200, Piotr Roszatycki wrote:
> Hello.
> 
> I would like to ask if anybody is working on the libtool package.
> 
> The current libtool package is in horrible state. The upstream source is 
> actively maintained, the Debian package is different in very misterious ways. 
> Some unknown patches, some strage hacks done with `sed'.

I've been working on it slowly, but I find other problems each
time I look at it.  I'll try to finish this up soon.

There are only 2 patches applied:
- Some supporting various k*bsd platforms, which really should go
  upstream once, but I don't think that's going to happen before
  those ports actualy become mature.
- The patch that prevents linking against dependency libs.
  Upstream rejected the patch and is working on an other solution
  that should hopefully make it in 2.2, I doubt it's going to
  make it into 2.0.  There are reports the current version in
  Debian breaks some things (with not installed libs?).

The sed hack in debian/rules is a needed hack.  Else the
/usr/bin/libtool depends on the gcc (g++) version.  The only
other way is that I do no longer provide /usr/bin/libtool

> I desperately need the fix to bug#221873. I've found the latest snapshot for 
> 2,1a version works correctly: the autoconf does not generate the checks for 
> C++ compiler.

That's a bug against autoconf, but I guess libtool can work
around it.  If you send me a patch I might consider applying it.

A c++ compiler is build essential on debian, but I can understand
that for other things it's not.

> Just now I'm working with my libtool compiled by hand but I would like to see 
> the real Debian support.
> 
> I'd like to see the libtool2.1 or just libtool2 package in the distribution, 
> at least in experimental archive. The libtool is critical if my application 
> have to be really portable, not just Debian-specific. The current libtool can 
> not generate correct acinclude.m4.

2.0 isn't released yet, but I will be getting a more recent 1.5
version and a more recent version in experimental too.


Kurt




Reply to: