"Edward J. Sabol" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In either case, IMHO, the preferred course of action would be to get
> the bugs in libtool fixed instead of going around telling package
> maintainers that they shouldn't use libtool.
Only if you accept the use of libtool as a given.
In my opinion, a tool should first prove its usefulness and robustness
and *then* be argued in favor of, not the other way around. Before
everyone jumps and says that libtool has been more than proven itself,
please take some perspective. In comparison with tools like Autoconf,
libtool is a relatively new thing.
A valid comparison would be with Automake, which I didn't want to use
because I found it extremely poor and cumbersome. Maybe many people
use it and maybe it solves *some* problems, but that fact alone is not
enough to convince me of its usefulness for a particular case. I only
ask that the same doubt be allowed libtool.
