> -Original Message-
> From: Michael Matz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 1:05 AM
> To: Robert Collins
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Bruce Korb; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [Fwd: ltmain.in]
>
>
> Hi,
>
> On Tue,
Hi,
On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, Robert Collins wrote:
> > current g++ version (not to speak of proprietary compilers)
> > which need that explicit linking. Instead a simple "g++
> > -shared -o libbla.so works". Well, yes, those only having a
> > static libstdc++ are screwed, but so what?
>
> Well that
> -Original Message-
> From: Michael Matz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 10:12 PM
> On a related note. How long do we want to support that cruft
> at all? I
> mean the pre- and postdeps. Objects and libraries. I'm not
> aware of any
> current g++ vers
On Tue, 26 Mar 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > I found that freebsd is hacking all the ltmain.sh-es to get
> > roughly the same behavior that netbsd is already getting.
> > Any objections to putting something along these lines into
> > ltmain.in? (Obviously chang
