hi,
as they're both 'release versions' now, if 1.5x tests are passing
100%, but 2.2x is showing numerous failures, what's the general
consensus on which to use?
2.2x is 'ok', but the tests are problematic? or, drop back to stable 15x?
___
http://lists
On 6 Mar 2008, at 10:29, snowcrash+libtool wrote:
as they're both 'release versions' now, if 1.5x tests are passing
100%, but 2.2x is showing numerous failures, what's the general
consensus on which to use?
2.2 has *much* better test coverage. Probably, 1.5x would also fail
the better tests...
hi,
> 2.2 has *much* better test coverage. Probably, 1.5x would also fail
> the better tests... and more of them than 2.2!
that's a good point. thx.
> > 2.2x is 'ok', but the tests are problematic? or, drop back to stable
> > 15x?
>
> Use 2.2
given the above pt, clear.
> and report any f
snowcrash+libtool wrote:
> already done the other day. pending ... :-)
It's on my list.
Peter
--
Peter O'Gorman
http://pogma.com
___
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
np at all! just responding to da man's suggestion :-)
___
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
Hello John,
* John Bytheway wrote on Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 10:54:05PM CET:
> I've been using libtool and libltdl to load libraries at runtime in a
> project I'm working on, and encountered circumstances where the error
> messages are less helpful than they might be.
>
> Looking at CVS HEAD, The
