libtool vs. libtool-devel

[Ryan Schmidt]

On Jan 7, 2008, at 21:58, skip at pobox.com wrote:

>>> Given the naive view that a larger version number implies  
>>> something a
>>> bit more current and "-devel" implies something a bit more
>>> development- oriented, shouldn't the libtool-devel port either be
>>> renamed or deleted altogether?
>>
>
>> The "-devel" suffix indicates a development
>
>> (non-production-quality, pre-release) version of a port, according
>
>> to the definition of the developer of the software.
>
>
> Sorry, I'm used to common convention in the Linux arena where the  
> XXX-devel
> package contains the .h files and such necessary to compile code  
> that uses
> XXX, while XXX is a binary containing the libXXX library (.so  
> files, etc).

Right, that's a difference between MacPorts and some other package  
managers. In MacPorts, the .h files and other necessary files for  
compiling code are already included in every port. The -devel ports  
are merely newer development versions of the software (or, sometimes,  
older versions of the software, in the event that no new development  
versions have been released following a stable release).

>> It can be deleted, but presumably the better course of action
>
>> would be to update it to the latest development version of
>
>> libtool.  Although, according to
>
>> http://www.gnu.org/software/libtool/, 1.9f is the latest
>
>> development version, though it is over 3 years old. I guess the
>
>> 2.1a version is newer, but they seem to be releasing daily new
>
>> versions of 2.1a, which isn't helpful.
>
>
> Given that it's unmaintained, I can't see that deleting it should  
> be all
> that big a deal.  It's apparently way behind the current development
> bleeding edge (which as you suggest might leave one pretty bloody  
> to use
> it).  I guess that given the meaning of "-devel" (is that a consistent
> meaning throughout MacPorts?), it's best left as-is.

Ok, let's leave it for now. Perhaps the libtool developers should be  
encouraged to release a new development version. Surely something  
useful has been changed in the past 3 years to merit a new release.

> Once burned, twice shy, so I will stay away from -devel packages in  
> the
> future unless there is no alternative.

Right, there's usually no need to install -devel ports. I don't have  
any installed.