Reapply patch lost during recent "blind import" oflibtool

[Loren James Rittle]

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