Hi Tim, * Tim Mooney wrote on Wed, Oct 12, 2005 at 05:05:15PM CEST: > In regard to: Re: mode=link and full path to dependent shared library?,...: > > > >Seems like an easier fix to use LTLIBINTL than my patch :) Tim, want > >to submit a patch to the aspell folks? > > :-) That's more or less what prompted my original question on this list, > about documentation for how libtool should be handling it. I wanted to > know if it was libtool that was doing something incorrectly, or aspell. > I'm still not sure. ;-)
Let's put it this way: Not handling absolute-path-shared-deplibs correctly is an unfortunately undocumented libtool limitation. We'd like to eliminate this limitation eventually, or alternatively document why it should not be used. Given that a better solution (which is simple at the same time) exists for your issue, that should be used; it takes pressure from us to take our time to fix this. So, to conclude: aspell is wrong (because LTLIBINTL is documented), and libtool could be doing things better. (But the latter isn't news to anyone.) > What I haven't yet tested is what LTLIBINTL looks like on systems that > have libintl.so but don't have a libintl.la (such as systems that don't > package libtool .la files). It could be that switching to LTLIBINTL > won't work for those systems. Using LTLIBINTL should work just fine. The important thing is that `libtool' gets to eat it, not that it was a libtool library. Anything else would be a bug in gettext.m4. > I'll test in the absence of libintl.la and see what happens. Cheers, Ralf _______________________________________________ http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
