Hallo Ralf,

On 22 Apr 2008, at 13:44, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 04:35:56PM CEST:
On 22 Apr 2008, at 05:39, Ross Burton wrote:
Was this behaviour present in libtool 1.5?

No it wasn't, because libtool was generated in a two stage process which
required calling ./libtool --config directly.

Charles posted a patch that would make
 AC_PROG_LIBTOOL

do the equivalent of
 LT_INIT
 LT_OUTPUT

We could consider doing that, to avoid these issues.  Of course
alongside an AU_DEFUN that recommends at autoupdate time that LT_OUTPUT
be removed if packages don't need ./libtool inside configure.
Yes, it would be slower.

Much slower.  And with more file droppings to feed and care for.

Thoughts on this?


-1

If someone really wants to upgrade from 1.5.x to 2.x, then I'd rather
send them a canned response and paste something from the manual to the
list until google can find the answer without effort, than I would deal
with asking people to jump through more hoops in order to have libtool
not be so slow.

Cheers,
        Gary
--
  ())_.              Email me: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  ( '/           Read my blog: http://blog.azazil.net
  / )=         ...and my book: http://sources.redhat.com/autobook
`(_~)_




Attachment: PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

_______________________________________________
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool

Reply via email to