Re: [Patch] updated ltcf-*.sh, ltconfig, ltmain.sh

[Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com>]

On Nov 15, 2001, Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com> wrote:

>>> Is there a reason for pulling in GCC's hacks rather than going to
>>> the official version per src/MAINTAINERS:
>>> ltconfig; ltmain.sh
>>> libtool: http://gnu.org
>>> Changes need to be done in tandem with the official LIBTOOL
>>> sources or submitted to the master file maintainer and brought
>>> in via a merge.
>> It was my impression from Alexandre that he had already imported
>> these changes from the official sources into gcc's tree.  For some
>> reason, they weren't imported into the binutils/gdb tree at that
>> time.

> Ok, so now that the change is committed to the master repository, it
> can be committed locally.  Can the ``gcc-local'' bit be clarified - it
> is no longer gcc-local.  Rather it was an accelerated patch brought in
> from the master repository.

Actually, it was indeed gcc local.  GCC used to import it from a
libtool branch, but the libtool branch was declared dead and merged
into libtool mainline along with major reworking.  So much that I
didn't feel confident about importing it entirely into GCC just
before some 3.0.x release.  So, we got patches into GCC, as long as
similar fixes went into libtool.

Eventually, I'll be confident enough with libtool CVS mainline (after
doing some testing with it) that I'll import it into GCC and src.
Meanwhile, we can live on with what we have now, i.e., a stable
snapshot of a libtool CVS branch plus a few patches that didn't make
it to the branch before it was terminated.

-- 
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