Charles Wilson wrote: > * NEWS: Indicate new feature and incompatibility. > * doc/libtool.texi [Linking executables]: Mention wrapper > executables, in addition to wrapper scripts. Add menu referencing > subsection 'Wrapper executables for programs'. > [Wrapper executables for programs]: New subsection. Documents > cwrapper rationale and command line options. > --- > This patch adds documentation for the new wrapper command line > options (which apply to both the wrapper /script/ and to the > wrapper /executable/). However, because the options are of > primary interest with respect to the wrapper exes, I've kept > the documentation in the page specific for those, with a note > that the script also supports the options.
Ping? http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libtool-patches/2009-07/msg00015.html This is the third of a series of three patches, that encompass previously proposed changes to the wrapper "system". This one just documents what the other two did. It arose as a result of discussions surrounding http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libtool-patches/2009-06/msg00031.html > However, Ralf said: >> I'd consider documenting --lt-dump-script the cementation of >> a bad API. > So, as a compromise we could could modify this documentation patch > to just not /document/ that option, while retaining all the other > documentation/discussion of the w-exe and the --lt-debug option. More discussion of this, please? I'm certainly willing to update the patch, but...I need a go/no-go. I'm going to be (re)raising all of my old, outstanding patches over the next week. Some, I think, are OK for immediate push, even 'relatively close to 2.2.8'. Others may be too big a change to consider at this point, and that's fine. Just let me know if you guys think a particular patch should be deferred until post-2.2.8 and I'll take it off the table. This one, I think is OK for pre-2.2.8, pending resolution of the doc/no-doc of --lt-dump-script issue -- what do you guys think? OK to push? Revise? -- Chuck
