On 10/17/2012 11:41 AM, Gary V. Vaughan wrote: > 1. libltdl as a standalone runtime loader wrapper > 2. libtool.m4/ltmain.sh to generate the libtool script
While I don't care about such a split in general, ... > I think (2) belongs better into Automake alongside the other tool > wrappers it already carries, where it can decide whether to run the > libtool m4 macros and roll an appropriate compiler wrapper tailored for > the project using it (no need for all the C++/Java/Fortran goo in a C- > only project for example). > > Another consideration is that rolling Libtool into Automake would make > using Libtool as a standalone script rather more difficult. Having > said that, my impression is that Libtool is rarely used that way in > any case, and further simplification may be possible by deliberately > dropping explicit support for that use case. > > If I make this split and contribute the macros and ltmain.sh to Automake, > is this something anyone else would like? If so, do you like it enough > to wire it into Automake with an appropriate hunk of Perl? ... please do not consider moving libtool.m4/ltmain.sh into Automake! There are build-tools around, often non-public, designed for either one specific platform, and/or for static libs only, which does handle all the build dependency hell (generators for domain specific languages for example) of the specific projects they're used for. Libtool does help a lot either to port these projects to other platforms, and/or to introduce shared libraries, by simply using CC="libtool gcc" (more or less), without the need to switch to Automake, which does do its own dependency thing. Thank you! /haubi/ _______________________________________________ https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
