On 15 Feb 2022 23:03, Damian Szuberski wrote:
> A standard `libtool` invocation line generated by automake looks like:
> ```
> LTCOMPILE = $(LIBTOOL) $(AM_V_lt) --tag=CC $(AM_LIBTOOLFLAGS) \
> $(LIBTOOLFLAGS) --mode=compile $(CC) $(DEFS) \
> $(DEFAULT_INCLUDES) $(INCLUDES) $(AM_CPPF
On 16 Jan 2024 22:43, Roumen Petrov wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On 13 Jan 2024 22:29, Bogdan wrote:
> >> Mike Frysinger , 2024-01-13 07:19:
> >>> On 15 Mar 2023 17:31, Bogdan wrote:
> Another patch from my side. This one makes it possible for users to
> pass additional options
On 14 Jan 2024 18:55, Bogdan wrote:
> Mike Frysinger , 2024-01-14 02:06:
> > On 13 Jan 2024 22:29, Bogdan wrote:
> >> Mike Frysinger , 2024-01-13 07:19:
> >>> On 15 Mar 2023 17:31, Bogdan wrote:
> Another patch from my side. This one makes it possible for users to
> pass additional op
"Zack Weinberg" writes:
> On Sun, Jan 14, 2024, at 1:49 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> On 13 Jan 2024 15:58, Karl Berry wrote:
>>> Another alternative: when this came up 30-odd years ago, rms changed the
>>> GNU maintainers doc to suggest x.y.90, .91, etc. for pretests. Doing
>>> that would at le
On Sun, Jan 14, 2024, at 1:49 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On 13 Jan 2024 15:58, Karl Berry wrote:
>> Another alternative: when this came up 30-odd years ago, rms changed the
>> GNU maintainers doc to suggest x.y.90, .91, etc. for pretests. Doing
>> that would at least have the benefit of following
Mike Frysinger wrote:
On 13 Jan 2024 22:29, Bogdan wrote:
Mike Frysinger , 2024-01-13 07:19:
On 15 Mar 2023 17:31, Bogdan wrote:
Another patch from my side. This one makes it possible for users to
pass additional options to libtool in 'compile' mode. Fixes #54020.
[SNIP]
Libtool support
