On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 06:40:46PM +0900, mpsuz...@hiroshima-u.ac.jp wrote:
> Dear Peter,
>
> On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 10:02:32 -0600
> "Peter O'Gorman" <pe...@pogma.com> wrote:
> >On 02/24/2010 02:42 AM, suzuki toshiya wrote:
> >> B. What should be fixed is GNU libtool, not library packages.
> >>
> >> There would be an opinion: the current GNU libtool behaviour:
> >> - "-framework XXX" is copied to .la file.
> >> - "-Wl,-framework,XXX" is NOT copied to .la file.
> >> is inconsistent, if this inconsistency is the reason to
> >> change from "-Wl,-framework,XXX" to "-framework XXX",
> >> what should be fixed is primarily GNU libtool inconsistency,
> >> changing in the side of library package is not good idea.
> >
> >If it is your package, and you know that you're going to use
> >libtool-2.2.x, then don't quote the -framework XXX flag with -Wl, and it
> >will get put into the .la file.
> >
> >>
> >> # Although I've not discussed with GNU libtool maintainers
> >> # about this issue, I don't hesitate to write a patch for
> >> # consistent behaviour.
> >
> >Feel free to post a patch to libtool-patc...@gnu.org (please post a
> >patch against the current development version, which you can either
> >fetch from git or the daily snapshot, see
> >http://www.gnu.org/software/libtool for info on both. I believe there is
> >currently a test case for -framework flag handling, so if you do post a
> >patch, please also expand on the test case. I will review and commit the
> >patch if appropriate.
>
> Thank you for comment. Just I've submitted a patch to pick
> "-framework" options from -Wl, and -Xlinker flags. I think
> I received no comment from the viewpoint of Fink maintainers.
> I want to hear the comments about my proposal checking the
> content of "-Wl," quoted flags.
>
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libtool-patches/2010-03/msg00001.html
>
> Although I noted an opinion requesting the consistent behaviour
> between raw "-framework" versus quoted "-Wl,-framework",
> there can be an objection like:
>
> The latest GNU libtool's handling of raw -framework is good,
> but more longer time is needed to be populated broadly and
> agreed to be safe (e.g. Fink still provides freetype-2.1.4
> binary package, the version released on 2003). The preference
> to -Wl, quoted flag is based on its transparency. The proposed
> patch breaks its transparency (and disturbs long time testing),
> so it is not useful but harmful.
>
> I want to hear the comment from Fink maintainers about the
> detailed parsing of -Wl, quoted flags by GNU libtool.
What does this have to do with fink?
Fink just wants things to Work(tm), and our maintainers able to cope
with whatever packages do. We don't write libtool, we don't patch
libtool locally, we don't have fink-specific behavior. Fink is just a
perl-script that calls system("./configure --prefix=/sw && make") and
such. As idiosyncratic as libtool can be, it's easy to use it and get
something that works as long as the author of the package fink is
compiling actually uses libtool per its manual and doesn't subvert its
magic. If those authors are not using things "correctly for whatever
libtool they are distributing", that's their bug; fink folks just
whine about "they are distributing something broken" and hack around
it without really distinguishing blame to libtool vs the author who is
mis-using libtool.
dan
--
Daniel Macks
dma...@netspace.org
http://www.netspace.org/~dmacks
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval
Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs
proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance.
See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev
_______________________________________________
Fink-devel mailing list
Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.os.apple.fink.devel
Subscription management:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
