On June 8, 2006 6:02:44 PM -0400 Alan DeKok <aland@nitros9.org> wrote:
Frank Cusack <fcusack@fcusack.com> wrote:
1. Can I just check this into the 1.1.0 branch and then upintegrate to HEAD (later)?
Ok. I'm not sure the fix is required for head, as that is already using a newer libtool, which should work.
It should be in head also (read on).
I'd like to see the diff, or have a description of it first, though. Working with libtool & autoconf is pretty insane.
Yeah. So what I did is upgrade to libtool and ltdl 1.5.22. The current libtool and ltdl is GNU + changes. This is difficult. I rearranged our autoconf stuff (ever so slightly :-)) to allow drop-in of the untouched originals. That's why I asked about the change the ltdl.c -- it'd be better to change our code than to require changes in ltdl.c each time we upgrade. I doubt upgrading libtool and ltdl has any real software effect, other than allowing R= to work. But being able to use unmodified sources does have a good maintenance effect.
3. CVS and branching is pitiful. CVS is also otherwise not very good. I suggest p4 (it's free for open source use), but barring that, svn.
Hmm... subversion doesn't do multiple repositories, and it requires everyting but the kitchen sink to build. I'm using perforce at work, and it's fine (if a little odd). For open source VCS's, I'd prefer mercurial.
Don't know mercurial, and don't know svn well enough to argue for it (except vs CVS). I will say that I'm surprised that a long list of dependencies is an issue -- what system today (that we care about) doesn't have either binary svn or an easy way (yum, apt-get, etc) to get dependencies? I'd be willing to host a p4 server on a trial basis, and possibly even long term. -frank