On May 11, 2005, at 10:32 PM, Stephen Davis wrote:
> On May 11, 2005, at 7:15 PM, Scott Palmer wrote:
>> Any ideas why renaming glibtool so that it is used isn't enough?
>
> I'm sure that works too but I'd rather not rename my system-
> supplied binaries if I don't have to.
You misunderstood. I DID rename that as an experiment and it was
NOT enough. It did fix some libtool related issues, but the build
still failed.
> As you can see, there are many ways to skin the cat. If something
> doesn't build straight out of the box (e.g. ./configure), then lots
> of people just whack on stuff until it works. I know I do.
I haven't got THAT much free time. Quite frankly, if it doesn't work
"straight out of the box" it's broken, and just because it's open
source doesn't mean it's MY job to fix it.
> Cem and I obviously used different approaches to solve the
> problem and both are valid depending on what you need. If you
> don't need shared libaries, then turn 'em off. If you want SSL,
> add "--with-ssl". It's just the magic and pain that is autoconf. :-)
I agree with the part about "pain" :)
To be honest I find the entire process of "./configure" utterly
ridiculous. For example: It checks for things like stdlib.h - if you
have a C compiler that doesn't have this file you have much bigger
problems than compiling subversion. It checks for fortran compilers
- why? subversion is written in C. I could go on, but the point is
that the massive amount of "checking" just goes to show that there is
something so fundamentally wrong with the entire process that it just
makes me sad.
Part of my question was meant to be "do I need shared libraries?"
with respect to javahl, I wasn't sure if javahl required shared
libraries... but I seem to have compiled it so I guess not.
Thanks for the help.
Scott
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu May 12 04:55:45 2005