[added libtool to CC list]
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Apr 18 04:49, Charles Wilson wrote:
The current .exe behavior has benefited from many years of tweaking and
fine-tuning, across many different packages (cygwin, gcc, gdb, binutils,
automake, autoconf, libtool, bash, coreutils, ...) to work together to
give the current, mostly coherent, least-surprise behavior we enjoy
Apart from that, I don't like what libtool does. I think it's a
terrible idea to have a script and a binary with the same name (only
differing by the .exe suffix) in the same directory. This behaviour
breaks the CYGWIN=transparent_exe option and there's no reliable way
Is there any chance that this could be changed in libtool?
Absolutely. I outlined the steps necessary to do this:
But got not P to TC. Any takers this time around?
Caveat: over a year after the message referenced above, but libtool2.0
is STILL in code-slush, so the desired fixes will have to wait until
after 2.0 (or 2.2, or whatever the heck we decide to call it) is
released. Of the three steps outlined in the "fix", it's possible that
(1) and (2) could go in prior to the 2.0/2.2 release, but this kind of
thinking is why we're still in slush and haven't released.
P.S. This will make you cry: libtool-1.5.0 was released 14-Apr-2003,
four years ago last Saturday. After a year and a half, some
destabilizing changes were under consideration and rejected for 2.0 --
we were "too close to a release" -- so an abortive "branch-2-0" was
created 3-Oct-2004 and the "destabilizing" changes went into HEAD.
Development continued sporadically on this branch for about a year until
24-Aug-2005 -- but throughout, most development effort remained on the
trunk or branch-1-5. The load on the developers maintaining three
branches was extreme, and branch-2-0 -- supposedly the "almost ready to
release" branch -- was getting short shrift, for a YEAR. And the
"destabilized" HEAD was now actually *more* stable than branch-2-0! It
got so bad that the branch was abandoned, and 2.0 was retargeted to come
from cvs HEAD Real Soon Now. Another year and a half, and here we
are...still in code slush.
(Sounds very very similar to the ongoing discussions with regards to
gcc-4.2: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-02/msg00427.html and
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-04/msg00510.html. Only much much worse.)
However, there are indications that this situation will come to an end
Real Soon Now And This Time We Mean It. So, here's hoping...