On Sat, May 24, 2008, Jeff Johnson wrote:

> On May 24, 2008, at 10:46 AM, Ralf S. Engelschall wrote:
>> On Sat, May 24, 2008, Jeff Johnson wrote:
>>
>>> I'm all in favor of using the latest & greatest for development.
>>>
>>> However, there are legacy needs building rpm from CVS.
>>
>> Can you be more specific, Jeff? The only needs I can imagine is that an
>> RPM 5 _developer_ like you wants to build HEAD on an ancient system. If
>> this is the case, ok, we can add some workarounds for this. But
>> regular
>> users in legacy situations should use the official RPM 5 tarballs and
>> for those one doesn't need a locally installed Libtool. Also keep in
>> mind that for just building RPM 5 on an ancient platform you could use
>> "devtool standalone" where the latest GNU libtool is available. So,
>> we are really talking about the situation that someone like you is 1.
>> building RPM from CVS, 2. on an older platform, 3. without "devtool
>> standalone", right? Puhhh... ok, I'll look how we can add some
>> seamless
>> support for this situation into the autogen.sh scripts. What
>> particular
>> version of ancient Libtool are you faced with? 1.5.x?
>>
>
> Sure I can be specific.
>
> And sure I could use devtool builds (I likely would), if
> I did not have to guarantee no Fedora yum breakage with rpm-5.x.
>
> I have daily reports of problems from non-devtool environments that
> I have to sort out, most of which WORKFORME (i.e. no reproducer),
> and latest libtool (and gettext) requirements for RPM just get in
> the way trying to identify a reproducer so that I can fix.
>
> I use a Fedora 9 (which isn't exactly "old") platform which provides
>
> $ rpm -q libtool
> libtool-1.5.24-6.fc9.i386

Ok, then I have to add some explicit checks for old Libtool versions.
I'll first finish some other work and then look at this...

                                       Ralf S. Engelschall
                                       rse@engelschall.com
                                       www.engelschall.com