On Mar 19, 2008, at 4:05 PM, Brian W. Barrett wrote:
> True - I have no objection to waiting for 2.2.1 or 1.3 to be branched,
> whichever comes first. The main point is that under no circumstance
> should 1.3 be shipped with the same 2.1a pre-release as 1.2 uses --
> time to migrate to something stable.
Cool; I think we're agreed. Just for simplicity; let's do whatever
comes first: LT hits 2.2.1 (or 2.2.2? I don't know their numbering
scheme) or we branch for v1.3.
> On Wed, 19 Mar 2008, Jeff Squyres wrote:
>> Should we wait for the next LT point release? I see a fair amount of
>> activity on the bugs-libtool list; I think they're planning a new
>> release within the next few weeks.
>> (I think we will want to go to the LT point release when it comes
>> I don't really have strong feelings about going to 2.2 now or not)
>> On Mar 19, 2008, at 12:26 PM, Brian W. Barrett wrote:
>>> Hi all -
>>> Now that Libtool 2.2 has gone stable (2.0 was skipped entirely), it
>>> probably makes sense to update the version of Libtool used to build
>>> nightly tarball and releases for the trunk (and eventually v1.3)
>>> from the
>>> nightly snapshot we have been using to the stable LT 2.2 release.
>>> I've done some testing (ie, I installed LT 2.2 for another project,
>>> nothing in OMPI broke over the last couple of weeks), so I have some
>>> confidence this should be a smooth transition. If the group decides
>>> is a good idea, someone at IU would just have to install the new LT
>>> version and change some symlinks and it should all just work...
>>> devel mailing list
> devel mailing list