On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 11:52:17AM +0200, Török Edwin said:
> On 2009-02-20 03:13, Stephen Gran wrote:
> > Now that I've been doing some looking, I see that there is also a
> > bundled -ltdl in the source tree.  I'm not aware of any license issues
> > with libtool (although as it's an FSF project, I wouldn't be surprised
> > to see it move to v3 in the future).  Is this just a convenience copy,
> > or is because of a license problem I'm unaware of?
> >
> > If it's just a convenience copy, can we give it the same treatment, and
> > preferentially use the system copy?  It'll probably mean patching the
> > version of the ltdl m4 that you have in favor of something that doesn't
> > produce totally broken make targets when you try to get it to use the
> > system libtool.
> >
> > Currently, if you pass --with-ltdl-dir=/usr/lib, it add -L/usr/lib as
> > a preprequisite, and if you pass --with-ltdl-dir=/usr/lib/libltdl.la,
> > configure goes off and looks for /usr/lib/libltdl.la/libltdl.la and
> > doesn't find it and exits.
> >   
> It already picks the system ltdl, *IF* you have libltdl7-dev installed
> (which is currently in experimental, waiting to be uploaded in sid).
> It won't work with an older ltdl, and I don't think it would be wise to
> downgrade libtool.

Ah, that's all right then - I can just wait on that making it to
unstable to develop against it.

|  Stephen Gran                  | "I'd love to go out with you, but I'm   |
|  st...@lobefin.net             | taking punk totem pole carving."        |
|  http://www.lobefin.net/~steve |                                         |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Please submit your patches to our Bugzilla: http://bugs.clamav.net

Reply via email to