Hi :-)
On 6 April 2012 01:16, Paul Smith psm...@gnu.org wrote:
On Thu, 2012-04-05 at 23:59 +0100, Tim Murphy wrote:
I see the value in a plugin system as being that I don't have to
recompile the plugins for every version of make. In a way it's tending
towards why bother if you did have to do
On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 2:59 AM, Tim Murphy tnmur...@gmail.com wrote:
I was thinking of marking this feature as experimental in the first
release (in the documentation), just to be more clear on expectations.
Very very much so - there are many platforms to support anyhow and
when someone
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2012 12:08:33 -0400
From: David Boyce david.s.bo...@gmail.com
Cc: bug-make@gnu.org bug-make@gnu.org
Apropos of this, the Apache Portable Runtime has a nice abstraction
over dlopen and LoadLibrary.
Is it significantly better than what libltdl provides? The advantage
of the
On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 12:40 PM, Eli Zaretskii e...@gnu.org wrote:
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2012 12:08:33 -0400
From: David Boyce david.s.bo...@gmail.com
Cc: bug-make@gnu.org bug-make@gnu.org
Apropos of this, the Apache Portable Runtime has a nice abstraction
over dlopen and LoadLibrary.
Is it
On Fri, 6 Apr 2012, David Boyce wrote:
On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 2:59 AM, Tim Murphy tnmur...@gmail.com wrote:
I was thinking of marking this feature as experimental in the first
release (in the documentation), just to be more clear on expectations.
Very very much so - there are many platforms
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2012 13:30:31 -0400
From: David Boyce david.s.bo...@gmail.com
Cc: tnmur...@gmail.com, bug-make@gnu.org
Sorry, I've never used libltdl. Maybe it would have been better just
to say libraries exist to paper over the differences between various
platforms dynamic linking APIs;
On Fri, 2012-04-06 at 22:35 +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2012 13:30:31 -0400
From: David Boyce david.s.bo...@gmail.com
Cc: tnmur...@gmail.com, bug-make@gnu.org
Sorry, I've never used libltdl. Maybe it would have been better just
to say libraries exist to paper over the
From: Paul Smith psm...@gnu.org
CC: David Boyce david.s.bo...@gmail.com, bug-make@gnu.org
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2012 16:13:47 -0400
Maybe this is just irrational prejudice but I've never had a good
experience using libtool and I'm SO uninterested in fighting with it in
GNU make.
I will admit
On 6 April 2012 21:55, Eli Zaretskii e...@gnu.org wrote:
From: Paul Smith psm...@gnu.org
CC: David Boyce david.s.bo...@gmail.com, bug-make@gnu.org
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2012 16:13:47 -0400
Maybe this is just irrational prejudice but I've never had a good
experience using libtool and I'm SO
On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 5:36 PM, Tim Murphy tnmur...@gmail.com wrote:
I had a little look at libtdl. To be brutal I thought that using
dlopen/LoadLibrary directly was *much* easier. There isn't really
anything madly complicated about what's being done.
To clarify: when I originally spoke
On 02/28/2012 08:12 PM, Sebastian Pipping wrote:
Without looking any closer than your email I may prefer to handle this
through the maintainer build step, rather than committing gnulib files
directly to the make source control. But I'll have to investigate.
I'm aware this can be done off-
11 matches
Mail list logo
