Tom Lord wrote: > Finally, I still wish that a side-effect of the libtool effort was a > document/database that explained clearly and concisely how to deal > with shared libraries in various environments. As it stands, that > information is weaved into convoluted code and the situation is > glossed over with "trust us -- we're building the right abstractions".
That is part of the intent of the "binary-branch" (if anyone still remembers it). My first step was just accommodating the lack of shell functions so I could strip down the clutter to a manageable size. I never have found much time to go much further, but the idea is to make the thing a shell program driver that feeds the shell a vastly smaller set of commands that do only what's needed. Eventually, it could be gotten to drive the compilers and linkers directly, but a lot of stuff would come first. My spare time does not seem to be copious. _______________________________________________ Libtool mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
