Re: New libtool maintainer
Roumen Petrov <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.gnu.libtool.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Ozkan Sezer wrote: > On 2/8/22, Julien ÉLIE <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi Alex, >> >>> 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. >> Many thanks for your work on Libtool! >> >> I believe a good start would be to integrate suggestions and patches >> from the issue tracker >> >> https://savannah.gnu.org/patch/?group=libtool >> >> and maybe also some patches Debian (and other distributions) have added >> over the years to the last 2.4.6 release. For instance: >> >> https://sources.debian.org/patches/libtool/2.4.6-15/ We must be very careful with Debian patches! Only Debian distributes version (valid for 1.4 and 2*) that cannot pass libtool regression tests. As result is expected Debian to be flooded with defects. > Some of the outstanding bugs with existing patches : > https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=38305 > https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=23348 > https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=21137 > (and its dups at 22895, 31900, and 36762) > https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=21503 > https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=22373 > https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=46559 > > Some of the outstanding bugs without any suggested patches: > https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=45738 > https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=52253 > https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=53479 If those bugs are not Debian specific someone could look at them. Libtool projects must not care for defects that shows Debian libtool brokenness. Regards, Roumen Petrov