Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * Roland Mainz wrote on Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 04:59:15PM CEST:
> > Ok... but "dolt" may been to be adopted to other compilers (like Sun
> > Workshop/Forte/Studio, icc etc.) and then it will be a bit more than the
> > 10 lines (and adopting it for other POSIX-like shells may
[ since my mails are being dropped for the other lists anyway, I might
as well drop the xorg and gnome-devtools lists ]
* Roland Mainz wrote on Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 03:26:11PM CEST:
> Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > [...] we are currently working on improving things a bit more,
> > targeting improvem
* Mike Frysinger wrote on Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 01:41:32AM CEST:
> On Sunday 13 April 2008, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > So don't do this, please. Supply --tag=CC if your compiler name doesn't
> > match.
>
> i doubt people will care at this point, but ive done a bit of work in Gentoo
> to make the
On Monday 14 April 2008, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * Mike Frysinger wrote on Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 01:41:32AM CEST:
> > On Sunday 13 April 2008, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > > So don't do this, please. Supply --tag=CC if your compiler name
> > > doesn't match.
> >
> > i doubt people will care at this
Since it has been claimed that libtool causes a lot of build overhead,
I have been doing a *lot* of testing here with latest development
libtool. We already know that libtool 1.5.X is very slow so it is not
worth worrying about that and it is more worthwhile to get projects
migrated to libtool
Attila Kinali wrote:
> If you care about sane tools, why do you use auto* and libtool
> in the first place?
Because converting X.Org's approximately 300 packages to anything
else would be even more painful? (And believe me, I curse libtool
regularly, and have had to find more ways to undo it's d
