On Mar 29, 2001, "Gary V. Vaughan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday 30 March 2001 2:23 am, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> Not really. We really must fix the bug that causes us to remove
>> duplicate libraries before releasing 1.4.
> Huh? Seems like I'm missing something here. What is this
I was wondering what the status is for supporting C++ on Win32 in the
multi-language branch of libtool. In particular I would like to know how
possible it is to build a shared library (dll) with the Win32 version of
Gcc (either, cygwin or mingw). I also need ltdl to work properly under Win32
so
On Friday 30 March 2001 2:23 am, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Mar 29, 2001, "Gary V. Vaughan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Which reminds me... once this patch is in and working, I'd like to
> > release libtool-1.3d (probably over the weekend) and declare a feature
> > freeze in HEAD so that we c
hey gary.
in the meantime, i finally finished the postinstall_cmds and
postuninstall_cmds (for modules as well as libs). what a disgusting thing
that is. can anyone think of a cleaner way?
patches inclosed for libtool.
- Original Message -
From: "Gary V. Vaughan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
On Mar 29, 2001, "Gary V. Vaughan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Which reminds me... once this patch is in and working, I'd like to release
> libtool-1.3d (probably over the weekend) and declare a feature freeze in HEAD
> so that we can shake the bugs out and release 1.4 a week or two later.
>
Which reminds me... once this patch is in and working, I'd like to release
libtool-1.3d (probably over the weekend) and declare a feature freeze in HEAD
so that we can shake the bugs out and release 1.4 a week or two later.
Is that okay with everyone?
Then we can finally get on with the messy
Hi edward,
I have been snowed this week, but I plan to integrate the libtool part of
your patch in the next couple of days. I'm Cc:ing the automake list in the
hope that the other automake parts will be picked up from there. In the mean
time, I can always add that part to the libtool README
On Mar 29, 2001, Nick Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am suggesting that libtool adopt the principle of least surprises
> and make name.la -module produce name.so wherever possible.
> Is this unreasonable?
Nope. The only point in discussion is whether this is possible on
NetBSD. We have
