From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2010 16:22:19 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] Libtool work: a tentative summary In-Reply-To: <1286112146.27944.349.camel@coalu.atr> References: <20100928223652.6dc72083@surf> <1286112146.27944.349.camel@coalu.atr> Message-ID: <20101003162219.62ad7888@surf> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Hello, On Sun, 03 Oct 2010 15:22:26 +0200 Lionel Landwerlin wrote: > Here is what I would like to us to do for the next releases : > > 1) Bump libtool package to 2.2, more and more packages require libtool > 2.2, and we're stuck to not autoreconfigure them without 2.2. This is > already creating problems to Thomas when trying to bump host > libglib/libgtk packages. 1a) Integrate Martin Banky's proposal so that packages using libtool 2.2 can work without the need to autoreconfigure them. > 2) Eventually integrate some patches to libtool 2.2 to be able to > cross compile autoreconfigured packages. > > 3) When the libtool 2.4 sysroot issue is sorted out, bump to libtool > 2.4 and get rid of the patches integrated in 2). > > I think 1) is mandatory for 2010.11. And 1a). So, I would suggest : *) Peter merges Martin Banky's set of patches on libtool http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/buildroot/2010-September/037505.html *) Lionel, could you propose a patch that just bumps libtool to 2.2 ? Lionel, Martin, Peter, what do you think ? Thanks, Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux development, consulting, training and support. http://free-electrons.com