On Mon, Jul 02, 2001 at 09:39:19PM +0100, Joe Orton wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 02, 2001 at 07:21:01PM +0100, Tim Waugh wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 02, 2001 at 12:09:05PM -0500, Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
> > > So your patch looks like it's basically removing ".libs" wherever it
> > > can from build system paths. Obviously, Greg Stein didn't put those
> > > in there extraneously -- so I assume your patch will *break* the build
> > > for libtool 1.3.5, right?
> >
> > I'm pretty sure this isn't the case. I have seen similar problems
> > with another package (openjade): the .libs is superfluous. It's a
> > libtool-internal thing, and shouldn't need to be explicitly
> > referenced.
>
> IIRC the .libs thing was to get inter-library dependencies working:
> something that libtool 1.3 doesn't support but 1.4 does (I think in
> theory the build can be simplified further by requiring 1.4, not that I
> am advocating that position since I'm hand-waving)
Joe is on the money here. The explicit use of ".libs" was to reach into the
directory to reference the .a or .so files and link against them explicitly.
There was no way to use the .la file because of the broken interdependency
stuff.
IMO, requiring libtool 1.4 is a fine idea.
I haven't read my Apache mail for over two weeks. There was some discussion
about the new autoconf and libtool. Dunno where it is right now. APR should
be required to be able to work with the new tools, tho. Patches there should
be fine, as long as both 1.3.x and 1.4 work for it.
Note that we (effectively) ship a copy of libtool with SVN. End users don't
need libtool installed. Thus, the libtool 1.4 requirement would apply only
to developers. (read: totally fine)
Cheers,
-g
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:32 2006