On Mon, 27 Jun 2005, Hrvoje Niksic wrote: > > Bugs are of course inevitable and you shouldn't be surprised seeing > > them especially as on exotic platforms (you even admit you've never > > been able to reproduce some of the other's problems on your > > systems). > > Please note that a platform doesn't qualify as "exotic" just because I > don't currently have access to it. I have regular access to only > Linux and Solaris.
Well, it's "exotic" to you in the sense you rely on others testing it for you. > > Of these, how many failed to achieve their goal due to a conceptual > > problem with libtool? -- only these can actually claim they have > > rights to blame libtool. Everyone else please either file bug > > reports (or better yet fix bugs you trip over) or keep silent. > > Sorry, I find that my time is more productively spent doing other > things. And I don't accept the position that one has to *earn* his > right to speak of Libtool's shortcomings, or that others should "keep > silent" just because they don't have the inclination to work on it. Certainly you may speak of its (and anything else's) shortcomings, state facts, etc. But to say it's "broken" you need to "earn" the right. Note that I haven't addressed the concern (most) specifically to you -- as a maintainer of a program who attempted to use libtool you have the right to express your experiences -- but there are a lot of others who just make a judgement on libtool based on their single-shot experience with their pet system (or perhaps even someone else's opinion). Also for most projects integrating libtool is almost as simple as placing AC_PROG_LIBTOOL into their configure.ac template. And it works. Even for so complicated setups as GCC, including cross-builds when some parts are built multiple times for different hosts. Libtool did fail for me a few times, but it was always due to a bug, not a design decision and my patches or proposals for fixes have always been welcomed warmly. Maciej
