Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Apr 2005, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
>
>> Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
>>
>>> Hmm. "Always use our own libtool" sounds a lot like some bug needed
>>> this. But then again, that line has been in there unchanged for six
>>> years. I wonder if it will break setups if we ch
On Fri, 1 Apr 2005, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Hmm. "Always use our own libtool" sounds a lot like some bug needed
this. But then again, that line has been in there unchanged for six
years. I wonder if it will break setups if we change this, it's like
a rope to save us from st
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> Hmm. "Always use our own libtool" sounds a lot like some bug needed
> this. But then again, that line has been in there unchanged for six
> years. I wonder if it will break setups if we change this, it's like
> a rope to save us from stupid errors rather than a necessity
Hi Greg,
* Greg Hudson wrote on Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 11:56:51PM CEST:
> Periodically, I face situations like this: libtool fails in some
> situation on a new operating system. The problem is already fixed
> upstream or can be fixed easily, but most of the packages I build are
> packaged with an o
Periodically, I face situations like this: libtool fails in some
situation on a new operating system. The problem is already fixed
upstream or can be fixed easily, but most of the packages I build are
packaged with an old version. Recent examples include the DESTDIR bug
with relinking in 1.4.x an
