This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Reapply patch lost during recent "blind import" oflibtool
In article <3AD4FDC6.46C6DEA0@ricardo-us.com>,
Robert Boehne <rboehne@ricardo-us.com> writes:
> This situation would be a little easier for Libtool maintainers
> if patches for 'ltconfig.in' were made, rather than 'ltconfig'.
Robert, you have added some very good information to the mix.
In fact, here is what I immediately thought upon reading above:
Yikes! I didn't even know there was an ltconfig.in. In the gcc
source tree, we only have ltconfig. ltconfig makes no mention that
it is generated from another file thus I didn't even know I was
making life hard for libtool maintainers when I sent patches against
ltconfig.
> I don't think that tags are much of a solution, I agree that
> these patches should be installed in Libtool's cvs first.
> I'll try to help Alexandre out with that.
In light of the fact that the gcc source tree doesn't contain primary
libtool files, I see your point. However, we should still consider
tracking libtool and other external sources in the gcc source tree via
vendor branches instead of plain checkins.
Regards,
Loren