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

[Koen Kooi]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 09-10-10 00:21, Chris Larson wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 1:48 PM, Frans Meulenbroeks <
> fransmeulenbroeks at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> 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.
>>
> 
> Agreed, I am as well.  As the new libtool is opt-in, I don't see the harm,
> and it'll ensure that any issues which crop up with the compatibility get
> fixed asap.

Yeah, let's get this in!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFMsEXlMkyGM64RGpERAsjyAKCc6eHVMBOfE27SW20BiCWvs7mdXACfYG6I
1zsti6PHxpCCOGHvqWBw4zI=
=4QWi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----