Hi Gary!
[dropping Automake@, since that part seems to have been shot down]
On 2012-10-17 11:41, 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 maintaine
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
> 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 s
On Oct 18, 2012, at 7:08 PM, Peter Rosin wrote:
> Hi Gary!
Hi Peter,
> On 2012-10-17 11:41, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
>> If the consensus is that Automake is not a good home for the libtool
>> compiler wrapper, then I still plan to split Libtool into two projects
>> as outlined above to decouple an
Hello Mr. Strike,
On Oct 18, 2012, at 7:16 PM, NightStrike wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
>> Thanks to everyone for your feedback. Much appreciated.
>>
>> It seems that merging libtool into Automake would be an unpopular move all
>> around, with significant d
$ make CFLAGS='-arch x86_64' CXXFLAGS='-arch x86_64' LDFLAGS='-framework
CoreFoundation -framework CoreServices
-L$HOME/build/sfAgent/libs/Release_Static/lib'
But when the build goes to link an executable:
/bin/sh ./libtool --tag=CXX --mode=link c++ -arch x86_64 -framework
CoreFoundat
