Re: Reapply patch lost during recent "blind import" of libtool

[Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>]

On Apr 11, 2001, Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com> wrote:

> 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.

I take the blame for not having been able to keep up with the few
patches submitted to libtool that I have approved for the GCC CVS
tree.  That was a mistake I'm not going to repeat.  I'll only approve
patches for libtool files in GCC after they're checked in in the
libtool CVS tree too, so that a newer version doesn't get changes
reverted, and so that users will be free to take whatever other
(newer) versions of libtool work for them and replace them in the GCC
tree.

> 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.

Yep.  Fortunately, one of the libtool maintainers also happens to be
one of the GCC configury maintainers :-)

Is there any place where we can document that patches for libtool
files should not be checked in in the GCC tree before being installed
in the libtool CVS tree, even when they come from people with global
write privs?

-- 
Alexandre Oliva   Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer                  aoliva@{cygnus.com, redhat.com}
CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp        oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist    *Please* write to mailing lists, not to me