[oe] [PATCH,V2 0/6] libtool 2.4 upgrade

[Frans Meulenbroeks]

2010/10/7 Khem Raj <raj.khem at gmail.com>:
> On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 12:56 AM, Koen Kooi <k.kooi at student.utwente.nl> wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 07-10-10 03:46, Khem Raj wrote:
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> Following set of patches is v2 of the patches adding support for getting libtool 2.4 into
>>> openemebedded. I have so far built minimal-image for two machines successfully using old
>>> and new libtool.
>>>
>>> The libtool sysroot feature knob is added through LIBTOOL_HAS_SYSROOT variable. If this is
>>> set to "yes" then you ought to use libtool > 2.4 by default its set to "no" which means
>>> the current behavior remains.
>>>
>>> The big change that libtool 2.4 brings is sysroot support and I have added
>>> support to use this feature. It should make our life easier.
>>>
>>> This needs a lot of testing.
>>>
>>> Please cherry pick the patch bundle and give it a try in yout environment
>>
>> Can you apply these to a branch so we can add fixes there if needed?
>
> I can do that. However now that backward compatibility is left intact I think
> it would not be that bad to merge it into master and fix things on
> master. the libtool
> 2.4 would have DEFAULT_PREFERENCE = "-1" by default it wont be picked by anyone.
> with the number of developers we have it will get better testing before we
> accumulate too many changes on a branch. Secondly there might be changes like
> gnutls one where the patch is only valid for new libtool and should be tested
> in old and new way. If there is any breakage introduced in existing build will
> be caught quickly. Where as on branch resources might be divided and it may
> not progress so well. I am just weighing efforts Vs. risk here and
> risk seems low
>
> Thanks
> -Khem
>
>>

Personally I'm in favour of merging into head. That way it gets
accepted easier and faster.

Frans.