On Wed, 25 Mar 2015, Vincent Torri wrote:
Is this log file sufficient ?
Yes, because it shows that the problematic arguments were passed to
libtool's command line, and not produced internally by libtool.
Perhaps the repetitions were produced by a improperly constructed
configure script, Ma
Is this log file sufficient ?
Vincent Torri
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 8:39 PM, Bob Friesenhahn <
bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us> wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Mar 2015, Vincent Torri wrote:
>
>>
>> also it seems that on Linux, it's not the case (no such long list of
>> arguments), while on Windows, it is. So
On Wed, 25 Mar 2015, Vincent Torri wrote:
also it seems that on Linux, it's not the case (no such long list of
arguments), while on Windows, it is. So maybe a problem in the Windows
port of libtool
The only way to know this is if we could see the arguments which were
passed to libtool, but yo
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 2:06 PM, Vincent Torri wrote:
> Here is below the list of arguments
>
> Vincent Torri
>
> libtool: compile: x86_64-w64-mingw32-gcc -std=gnu99 -DHAVE_CONFIG_H
> -I. -I.. -I../src/lib/efl -DPACKAGE_BIN_DIR=\"/opt/windows_64/bin\"
> -DPACKAGE_LIB_DIR=\"/opt/windows_64/lib\"
>
Here is below the list of arguments
Vincent Torri
libtool: compile: x86_64-w64-mingw32-gcc -std=gnu99 -DHAVE_CONFIG_H
-I. -I.. -I../src/lib/efl -DPACKAGE_BIN_DIR=\"/opt/windows_64/bin\"
-DPACKAGE_LIB_DIR=\"/opt/windows_64/lib\"
-DPACKAGE_DATA_DIR=\"/opt/windows_64/share/ethumb\"
-DPACKAGE_BUILD_
On Wed, 25 Mar 2015, Vincent Torri wrote:
hello,
In a project i'm following, i've seen that bug report:
https://phab.enlightenment.org/T2225
The build system pass a huge number of identical options and libtool does not
try to remove them
is it a problem with libtool (that is, libtool should
