Re: New libtool maintainer

I just took a look at those. Good catches on the typos, I probably would 
not have noticed them just reading the script myself. Same thing with 
the M4 `[]' quoting issue ( classic pitfall ). I'll get these merged ASAP.

For the non-Linux patches I can merge them, but I don't have personally 
have OSX, powerpc, or Solaris boxes, and while I do have a Windows 
partition I don't currently have it set up to run these kinds of tests. 
Nonetheless I can merge these - if you have access to any of those 
platforms let me know if you would be open to running `make check' and 
posting the logs so I can sanity check the new behavior.

Thank you so much for bringing these to my attention. There's a long 
list of old patches and mailing list archives and as a practical matter 
it's hard to know which of them are still relevant - so I appreciate 
your help.


On 11/20/21 2:56 AM, Ozkan Sezer wrote:
> On 10/27/21, Alex Ameen <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Howdy!
>>
>> This is Alex Ameen reporting in from Austin, Texas. I'm a long time GNU
>> and `autotools' user who specializes in ELF linking and loading. I'm
>> writing you today to introduce myself and announce that I was recently
>> approved as the new maintainer of `libtool'!
>>
>> I'm excited to bring some updates to the tool and want to thank everyone
>> for their patience while I work my through the pending patch/bug lists
>> and get familiar with some of the maintenance infrastructure.
>>
>> In the near future I look forward to extending `libtool' support for
>> modern ELF shared objects, and improved integration with the rest of
>> `autotools'. I'll share a more detailed roadmap after I've worked my
>> through the pending tasks in the mailing lists.
>>
>> I want to express my appreciation for all of the `autotools' and
>> `libtool' maintainers/contributors before me. I understand that
>> `libtool' is an important piece of infrastructure for a number of
>> important pieces of software, and I aim to treat modifications and
>> extensions appropriately with that responsibility in mind ( don't worry
>> I'm not going to break legacy behavior with reckless abandon haha ).
>>
>> Feel free to reach out if you have pending patches/issues you want to
>> "bump", ideas for improvements, general advice for a new GNU maintainer
>> - and above all if you'd like to lend a hand toward getting `libtool' up
>> and running again.
>>
>> Thank you for your time,
>>
>> -Alex Ameen
> It would be nice if the patches for the following long-standing
> bugs were applied:
>
>
> https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=21137 (also reported
>          duplicately as 22895, 31900 and 36762)
> https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=22373
> https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=23348
> https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=38305
> https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=46559
> https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=44605 (also see 44684)
>
> And maybe this?
> https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=41837
>
> --
> O.S.