On Tuesday 25 August 2009 12:42:19 Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > On Tue, 25 Aug 2009, Mike Frysinger wrote: > >> Relying on the OS's implicit dependency features seems to be an > >> approach which is fraught with peril. > > > > why ? > > When viewing the issue through Linux package-maintainer spectacles > everything looks pretty straightforward since the environment and > packages are well managed and tested prior to deployment. Any > failures can be usefully corrected. Libraries are carefully built > with well-managed partial dependency lists. If you consider the case > where someone installs and builds everything from a random collection > of source packages on a random Linux release, then the situation is > different. > > This issue has some up oodles of times. Obviously there is a good > reason for the complaints (Linux equivalent of "DLL hell") but the > solution in libtool needs to be assured to work everywhere, and not > just on well-managed well-manicured recent Linux.
the "dll hell" issue you refer to really doesnt have much (anything?) to do with libtool. that's a binary package issue. making the code use reduced library sets for only linux targets is fine by me. libtool already has plenty of target-specific code based on the quality of library handling. -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
