Re: Reapply patch lost during recent "blind import" oflibtool

[Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>]

>>>>> "Alexandre" == Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com> writes:

    Alexandre> copies of these files.  That's exactly what we do with
    Alexandre> config.guess and config.sub.  Why should the libtool
    Alexandre> files be any different?

That's a fine policy -- as long as a) libtool works well as is, or b)
the changes we need are quickly propogated into the main repository
and back to us.

This hasn't been a problem with config.guess because the software
works well and requires many fewer changes than libtool has of late.
Basically all that every happens in config.guess is that is that a new
architecture appears.

In contrast, with libtool, some of us have had to make substantial
changes in extremely complex shell scripts, partly because quick
action from the libtool maintainers was not forthcoming.  And, by some
people's accounts, some parts of libtool do not yet fully support the
various architectures GCC targets.

In summary, I think that treating libtool as a read-only part of GCC
is a good idea, if it is practical.  A large part of that depends on
the libtool maintainers acting quickly to solve problems experienced
in GCC.

--
Mark Mitchell                   mark@codesourcery.com
CodeSourcery, LLC               http://www.codesourcery.com