On Wednesday 17 October 2007, Roy Marples wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-10-18 at 02:08 +0300, Petteri Räty wrote:
> > I don't pretend to know much about elibtoolize but if it's so useful why
> > it's not needed to always run it?
>
> Not every package uses libtool, or other GNU autotools.
> Sometimes it ha
On Wednesday 17 October 2007, Roy Marples wrote:
> What's more, elibtoolize does more than just fix any FreeBSD issues as
> it fixes stuff for uclibc and darwin based platforms. It also fixes some
> old crusty libtools in packages that affect Linux/glibc installs too.
you could consider these the
On Thu, 2007-10-18 at 02:08 +0300, Petteri Räty wrote:
> I don't pretend to know much about elibtoolize but if it's so useful why
> it's not needed to always run it?
Not every package uses libtool, or other GNU autotools.
Sometimes it has to be run in specific directories instead of just the
topl
Roy Marples kirjoitti:
> On Wed, 2007-10-17 at 15:25 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
>> On 19:51 Wed 17 Oct , Duncan wrote:
>>> What about putting it in an fbsd conditional? That way Linux users don't
>>> have to deal with the step if it's unnecessary for them, while the fbsd
>>> users still g
On Wed, 2007-10-17 at 15:25 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> On 19:51 Wed 17 Oct , Duncan wrote:
> > What about putting it in an fbsd conditional? That way Linux users don't
> > have to deal with the step if it's unnecessary for them, while the fbsd
> > users still get it when they need it.
On 19:51 Wed 17 Oct , Duncan wrote:
> What about putting it in an fbsd conditional? That way Linux users don't
> have to deal with the step if it's unnecessary for them, while the fbsd
> users still get it when they need it. Seems to me this should be a
> workable compromise, where people
