Re: Cygwin patch for 1.6.4

[Rob Browning]

Jan Nieuwenhuizen <address@hidden> writes:

>> Further, if I'm going ot apply it to 1.6 before 1.6.5, I should
>> ignore the libool bits.  Did I get that right?
>
> Maybe, but I'm not sure what happens when you 'ignore the libtool
> bits'.  What I meant to say whas that I'd like to have the libtool
> part of the patch in too, but that it makes the patch against 1.6.4
> deceptively large.  That's because I updated to libtool CVS.

Would updating the 1.6 branch using the latest libtool help (though we
may still need to use our libguile-ltdl, depending on what they've
changed), or are you saying you already did that update (hence the
large patch)?  If the latter, then did you just libtoolize to get the
latest bits of everything but libltdl, or did you merge the upstream
libltdl changes into libguile-ltdl as well?

Also do you follow libtool upstream well enough to have a sense that
libtool CVS is be stable enough for a 1.6 point release for all our
other platforms?

> The new guile diffs against libtool, generated automagically in
> libguile-ltdl/upstream, are more readable, because they are very
> small.

> The fact that guile 1.6.x is no longer a standard libtoolized
> package (where the user can upgrade libtool with a single command if
> necessary) but ships a modified copy that needs some work to upgrade
> is what cost me most time.  But maybe I missed something.

Unfortunately, we didn't really have an alternative.  We can still use
libtoolize to bring the guile tree up to date; we just can't use the
upstream libltdl until/unless they've fixed the important bugs.

Thanks for the help.
-- 
Rob Browning
rlb @defaultvalue.org and @debian.org; previously @cs.utexas.edu
GPG starting 2002-11-03 = 14DD 432F AE39 534D B592  F9A0 25C8 D377 8C7E 73A4