Hallo Ralf, On 22 Apr 2008, at 13:44, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 04:35:56PM CEST:On 22 Apr 2008, at 05:39, Ross Burton wrote:Was this behaviour present in libtool 1.5?No it wasn't, because libtool was generated in a two stage process whichrequired calling ./libtool --config directly.Charles posted a patch that would make AC_PROG_LIBTOOL do the equivalent of LT_INIT LT_OUTPUT We could consider doing that, to avoid these issues. Of coursealongside an AU_DEFUN that recommends at autoupdate time that LT_OUTPUTbe removed if packages don't need ./libtool inside configure. Yes, it would be slower.
Much slower. And with more file droppings to feed and care for.
Thoughts on this?
-1
If someone really wants to upgrade from 1.5.x to 2.x, then I'd rather
send them a canned response and paste something from the manual to the
list until google can find the answer without effort, than I would deal
with asking people to jump through more hoops in order to have libtool
not be so slow.
Cheers,
Gary
--
())_. Email me: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
( '/ Read my blog: http://blog.azazil.net
/ )= ...and my book: http://sources.redhat.com/autobook
`(_~)_
PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
