From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2010 16:57:44 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] Tentative conclusion on the libtool work In-Reply-To: <20100928223652.6dc72083@surf> References: <20100928223652.6dc72083@surf> Message-ID: <20101007165744.490fca33@surf> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 22:36:52 +0200 Thomas Petazzoni wrote: > In my opinion, we should settle on a solution before mid-october, in > order to merge it before the end of october and give us enough time > for testing before the release at the end of november. Considering > how much time Martin and Lionel have dedicated to this issue, I think > that their respective work deserve some attention. >From the various comments on this list and discussions on IRC, it seems that the consensus is that : *) We should merge Martin Banky's work, as it keeps the existing known-working approach and just extends it to support packages that have used libtool 2.2 to generate their libtool script. Peter, if you're ok, I can give some build tests to Martin's work and send you a pull request for it. *) We should upgrade our own libtool package to libtool 2.2, so that packages such as libgtk2 that needs to be autoreconf'ed *and* need libtool >= 2.2 can actually be autoreconf'ed. Lionel, would you mind preparing such a patch set ? Do we agree on this solution ? Ideally, it'd be nice to merge it within the next few weeks, at least before the end of October, so that we can bump libgtk2 and have all this in 2010.11. Regards, Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux development, consulting, training and support. http://free-electrons.com