[Note: My connectivity is quite limited currently.. ]
Somewhat... but it does mean that we'd be looking down into .libs for the
libraries to put into NON_LIBTOOL_LIBS. Not sure what I think about that
one... (reaching into .libs is the basic question: do we or don't we?)
Am I correct
It works for me.
I only have two mild concerns:
1) APR's use of .la files when the user doesn't use libtool (noted above)
2) APRVARS.in using variables not in the APR namespace. See apr-util's
export_vars.sh.in for what I think is the Right Way (and how it is used
in Apache's
On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 09:22:30PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It works for me.
I only have two mild concerns:
1) APR's use of .la files when the user doesn't use libtool (noted above)
2) APRVARS.in using variables not in the APR namespace. See apr-util's
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
gstein 01/01/09 03:06:29
Libtool-ize APR.
Index: Makefile.in
===
RCS file: /home/cvs/apr/shmem/unix/Makefile.in,v
retrieving revision 1.14
retrieving revision 1.15
diff -u -u
