Hi Peter, Thanks for the feedback.
Peter O'Gorman wrote:
> Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
>
>> ## LT_SYS_SHLIBEXT
>
> Since this is actually the "module" extension, I am not sure that it
> should be called LT_SYS_SHLIBEXT. Although it is only Mac OS X/darwin
> that these differ in current code, perhaps we need both (even though we
> only call one ourselves)...
Yes, good point. How about `LT_SYS_MODULEEXT'?
With an LT_SYS_SHLIBEXT, we could factor away the `shrext_cmds' nonsense.
The darwin code in ltmain.sh hardcodes dylib a fair amount at the moment,
so we could clean that up to.
Cheers,
Gary.
--
Gary V. Vaughan ())_. [EMAIL PROTECTED],gnu.org}
Research Scientist ( '/ http://tkd.kicks-ass.net
GNU Hacker / )= http://www.gnu.org/software/libtool
Technical Author `(_~)_ http://sources.redhat.com/autobook
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Libtool mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
