* Braden McDaniel wrote on Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 10:20:13PM CEST: > Ralf Wildenhues wrote: >> * Braden McDaniel wrote on Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 11:03:04AM CEST: >>> In lt__glibc.h, there are symbols HAVE_ARGZ_H and HAVE_WORKING_ARGZ. >>> Yet, argz.h appears to be included irrespective of them. Is this >>> intentional? (It's a problem here because there is no argz.h.) >> >> Yes. Libtool provides a replacement argz.h, see libltdl/argz_.h. > > I did. But argz_.h is not getting included by lt__glibc.h; argz.h is. > Does the configure build copy argz_.h to argz.h?
Yes. The copying is done so that, if the system argz.h is good, we don't accidentally include our own one. >> How come you cannot use a shell environment like MinGW or SFU to build >> Libtool? You're going to have a pretty rough time emulating the rather >> involved build logic for it. > > It didn't seem so bad for libtool 1.5; I guess it's gotten quite a bit > more complicated for 2.x? Yes. > Really, I'd be happy to jettison the Visual C++ project file build and > build the software with the autotools on Windows. But libtool 1.5 > certainly didn't play nicely with the Microsoft compiler; and while I > haven't tried 2.2, the traffic I've seen on this list suggests that > patches to improve that situation haven't made it in yet. Yes, unfortunately there is still a ways to go. Cheers, Ralf _______________________________________________ http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool