Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It doesn't exist; I think it's a great idea. Perhaps a tool named
> dh_libtool, which populates a substvar named ${libtool:Depends}?
Sounds good to me.
I'm going to be leaving my current job in a few weeks and taking
several weeks off between jobs. I'll try to work on it then along
with some other debian tasks that I've been putting off. I can't
imagine it would be very difficult.
> FWIW, detecting a fixed libtool would be rather difficult, since it's the
> libtool used by the depending application which does the recursion and
> therefore needs to be fixed.
I was thinking we'd be able to tell from the .la file what we needed
to do. If a new libtool still generated a .la file, perhaps it could
put some kind of version indicator or something similar. Anyway, it's
not clear to me what a fixed libtool would do differently (I don't
know libtool that well) though. Anyway, I've been looking for an
excuse to dig into this. Once I could clearly articulate why libtool
is broken and what a non-broken libtool would look like, it will be
much clearer what kind of strategy would work in both cases.
--Jay
--
Jay Berkenbilt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
