1.1.2 is broken if you have closefrom()

Frank Cusack fcusack at fcusack.com
Fri Jun 9 01:35:50 CEST 2006

On June 8, 2006 6:02:44 PM -0400 Alan DeKok <aland at nitros9.org> wrote:
> Frank Cusack <fcusack at 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.


More information about the Freeradius-Devel mailing list