I'm experiencing a problem linking with static libraries on Darwin (Mountain
Lion). I'm getting this warning:
> ld: warning: ignoring file ./.libs/libxqilla.a, file was built for archive
> which is not the architecture being linked (x86_64): ./.libs/libxqilla.a
…even though I'm pretty confiden
On 17/10/2012 08:27, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
>> > Creading a stand-alone libltdl package is a very good idea.
> The separation will also make both packages much smaller and more manageable,
> especially without all the contortions of trying to support all the different
> ways of copying everything i
Thanks to everyone for your feedback. Much appreciated.
It seems that merging libtool into Automake would be an unpopular move all
around, with significant downsides for users, so I no longer plan to do
that... unless there is a still strong technical argument supporting it that
I've yet to hear.
On Wed, 17 Oct 2012, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
Libtool is just (a complicated) compiler wrapper, to make building and
linking against libraries easy to specify... be that on the command
line with a direct libtool invocation, or from Makefile.am
specifications. I'm considering splitting the current
On Wed, 2012-10-17 at 16:41 +0700, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
> 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 simp
On 17/10/12 05:41, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
> 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 b
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
On 10/17/2012 11:41 AM, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
> Autotoolers,
>
> For quite some time now I've been thinking about simplifying Libtool,
> but I'm interested in feedback and more particularly buy-in from
> Automake maintainers before I start the work, so that I have a better
> idea of what directio
Autotoolers,
For quite some time now I've been thinking about simplifying Libtool,
but I'm interested in feedback and more particularly buy-in from
Automake maintainers before I start the work, so that I have a better
idea of what direction I'm heading in...
Libtool is just (a complicated) compil
