Autotoolers,
For quite some time now I've been thinking about simplifying Libtool,
but I'm interested in feedback and more particularly buy-in from
Automake maintainers before I start the work, so that I have a better
idea of what direction I'm heading in...
Libtool is just (a complicated) compil
On 10/17/2012 11:41 AM, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
> Autotoolers,
>
> For quite some time now I've been thinking about simplifying Libtool,
> but I'm interested in feedback and more particularly buy-in from
> Automake maintainers before I start the work, so that I have a better
> idea of what directio
On 10/17/2012 11:41 AM, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
> 1. libltdl as a standalone runtime loader wrapper
> 2. libtool.m4/ltmain.sh to generate the libtool script
While I don't care about such a split in general, ...
> I think (2) belongs better into Automake alongside the other tool
> wrappers it
On 17/10/12 05:41, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
> Another consideration is that rolling Libtool into Automake would make
> using Libtool as a standalone script rather more difficult. Having
> said that, my impression is that Libtool is rarely used that way in
> any case, and further simplification may b
On Wed, 2012-10-17 at 16:41 +0700, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
> Another consideration is that rolling Libtool into Automake would make
> using Libtool as a standalone script rather more difficult. Having
> said that, my impression is that Libtool is rarely used that way in
> any case, and further simp
On Wed, 17 Oct 2012, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
Libtool is just (a complicated) compiler wrapper, to make building and
linking against libraries easy to specify... be that on the command
line with a direct libtool invocation, or from Makefile.am
specifications. I'm considering splitting the current
Thanks to everyone for your feedback. Much appreciated.
It seems that merging libtool into Automake would be an unpopular move all
around, with significant downsides for users, so I no longer plan to do
that... unless there is a still strong technical argument supporting it that
I've yet to hear.
On 17/10/2012 08:27, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
>> > Creading a stand-alone libltdl package is a very good idea.
> The separation will also make both packages much smaller and more manageable,
> especially without all the contortions of trying to support all the different
> ways of copying everything i
I'm experiencing a problem linking with static libraries on Darwin (Mountain
Lion). I'm getting this warning:
> ld: warning: ignoring file ./.libs/libxqilla.a, file was built for archive
> which is not the architecture being linked (x86_64): ./.libs/libxqilla.a
…even though I'm pretty confiden
