Re: [PATCH] libtool with --tag=XXX (Was: make swig-py won't compile)

From: Jani Averbach <jaa_at_jaa.iki.fi>
Date: 2005-01-05 05:32:01 CET

On 2005-01-04 17:18-0800, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>
> Looks good. I tweaked it slightly (removed the $(SHELL) part for
> apr-libtool code path) and committed it in r12591. Thanks! -- justin
>
Thanks Justin!

I am not objecting what you did, but would like to know better, so:

AC_PROG_LIBTOOL will expand (at least here) to
$(SHELL) $(top_builddir)/libtool
and we are using a same kind of form for SVN_LIBTOOL.

Why don't we use $(SHELL) for apr's libtool? I thought that using an
explicit shell for it would be a good thing to do, at least because of
consistency, if not otherwise?

BR, Jani

-- 
Jani Averbach
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org

Received on Wed Jan 5 05:33:13 2005

This message: [ Message body ]
Next message: Ben Collins-Sussman: "Re: svn log hides log messages"
Previous message: Kouhei Sutou: "Re: [PATCH] Ruby SWIG-based bindings"
In reply to: Justin Erenkrantz: "Re: [PATCH] libtool with --tag=XXX (Was: make swig-py won't compile)"
Next in thread: Justin Erenkrantz: "Re: [PATCH] libtool with --tag=XXX (Was: make swig-py won't compile)"
Reply: Justin Erenkrantz: "Re: [PATCH] libtool with --tag=XXX (Was: make swig-py won't compile)"

Contemporary messages sorted: [ By Date ] [ By Thread ] [ By Subject ] [ By Author ] [ By messages with attachments ]