This is an automated email from the git hooks/post-receive script. It was
generated because a ref change was pushed to the repository containing
the project GNU Libtool.
The branch, master has been updated
via 90231d3e97cc87fd19872832f57f879e68163380 (commit)
from
This is an automated email from the git hooks/post-receive script. It was
generated because a ref change was pushed to the repository containing
the project GNU Libtool.
The branch, master has been updated
via cd0b95778b73f5101d4e10bda30a24191d8e1eae (commit)
from
Okay to push?
* libtoolize.m4sh: Replace hand written shell code with a
call to M4SH_GETOPTS. Move some premature initialization
from the preamble to the main part of the script. Exit with
an error on spurious additional non-option arguments.
(envopts): Integrate LIBTOOLIZE_OPTIONS pre-parsing
Hi Gary,
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 05:18:08PM CEST:
Okay to push?
Some of the $ECHO use ($ECHO $opt) now became plain echo, that might
be a problem with backslashes or leading single hyphens. Otherwise, it
looks to me like with
--ltdl=foo --ltdl=bar
the old version
* Peter Rosin wrote on Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 12:10:34AM CEST:
Den 2010-06-09 20:30 skrev Ralf Wildenhues:
Sorry for not being clear. I really meant running this in the toplevel
build directory:
make install installcheck TESTSUITEFLAGS='-v -d -x 75'
But since you could reproduce, that's
On 06/10/2010 03:07 PM, Peter O'Gorman wrote:
On 06/10/2010 11:10 AM, Peter O'Gorman wrote:
Hi,
I got an off-list report from a user about test failures in 2.2.6b, that
turned out to be either because he'd configured with --disable-shared or
libtool had incorrectly guessed that his system did
Hi Peter,
On 11 Jun 2010, at 10:04, Peter O'Gorman wrote:
This patch fixes the above problem with libtool dropping the c.lo object.
Test passes with and without --disable-shared.
Ok?
* libltdl/config/ltmain.m4sh: When not building a shared
library, use the non-pic objects to create a
Hi Peter,
* Peter O'Gorman wrote on Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 05:04:55AM CEST:
+ Create reloadable object files with non-pic objects too.
+ * libltdl/config/ltmain.m4sh: When not building a shared
+ library, use the non-pic objects to create a reloadable
+ object, because pic
On 06/10/2010 11:05 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Hi Peter,
* Peter O'Gorman wrote on Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 05:04:55AM CEST:
+ Create reloadable object files with non-pic objects too.
+ * libltdl/config/ltmain.m4sh: When not building a shared
+ library, use the non-pic objects to
Hallo Ralf,
Thanks for the review.
On 10 Jun 2010, at 23:54, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 05:18:08PM CEST:
Okay to push?
Some of the $ECHO use ($ECHO $opt) now became plain echo, that might
be a problem with backslashes or leading single hyphens.
Hi Peter,
On 10 Jun 2010, at 12:33, Peter O'Gorman wrote:
As I am sure many are aware, libltdl's error reporting is pretty dumb,
lt_dlerror() regularly reports things like file not found where the actual
problem might be something completely different, and a reasonable error
string may be
Hi Gary!
Den 2010-06-09 16:46 skrev Gary V. Vaughan:
Hi Peter,
[[Adding libtool list]]
On 9 Jun 2010, at 20:21, Peter Rosin wrote:
Den 2010-06-09 14:50 skrev Gary V. Vaughan:
As far as I can tell, you are eminently more qualified than me to know
whether your patches are likely to have
Hi Peter,
On 10 Jun 2010, at 14:35, Peter Rosin wrote:
Den 2010-06-09 16:46 skrev Gary V. Vaughan:
As far as I can tell, you are eminently more qualified than me to know
whether your patches are likely to have issues. If we can't do a straight
merge from your branch to master after 2.2.10 is
Den 2010-06-10 11:14 skrev Gary V. Vaughan:
8c17887ee34e73a2aeb127b94f5b76f45dc34017
Why so much cruft in ltmain.m4sh just to drive a different archiver? It
seems to me that this would be better and easier to maintain, test and extend
as a whole new script. Let's call it,
Aside: I'm leaning away from upholding the
'drop-in-with-minimum-edits' philosophy for my rewrite, since the
dlfcn.h API seems like a pretty bad design to me. After all, all
people really need to do is call functions with a known name and
known signature which happen to be in another library.
Hi Peter,
On 10 Jun 2010, at 20:55, Peter Rosin wrote:
Den 2010-06-10 11:14 skrev Gary V. Vaughan:
8c17887ee34e73a2aeb127b94f5b76f45dc34017
Why so much cruft in ltmain.m4sh just to drive a different archiver? It
seems to me that this would be better and easier to maintain, test and
Hi Peter,
On 10 Jun 2010, at 21:15, Peter O'Gorman wrote:
Aside: I'm leaning away from upholding the
'drop-in-with-minimum-edits' philosophy for my rewrite, since the
dlfcn.h API seems like a pretty bad design to me. After all, all
people really need to do is call functions with a known name
On 06/10/2010 09:45 AM, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
I think it would be better in c++.
No, that would mean you have to jump through hoops to use it from C.
And it would make me cry myself to sleep at night. I avoid C++, Perl,
McDonalds and suicide bomber recruiters as much as I possibly can. I'm
Hello,
* Peter O'Gorman wrote on Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 05:12:41PM CEST:
On 06/10/2010 09:45 AM, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
I think it would be better in c++.
No, that would mean you have to jump through hoops to use it from C.
It's simple to write a library in C++ but make its public interface
On 06/10/2010 02:28 PM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jun 2010, Peter O'Gorman wrote:
As I am sure many are aware, libltdl's error reporting is pretty dumb,
lt_dlerror() regularly reports things like file not found where the
actual problem might be something completely different, and a
On Thu, 10 Jun 2010, Peter O'Gorman wrote:
As I am sure many are aware, libltdl's error reporting is pretty dumb,
lt_dlerror() regularly reports things like file not found where the actual
problem might be something completely different, and a reasonable error
string may be readily available
Hello,
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 04:35:41PM CEST:
On 10 Jun 2010, at 20:55, Peter Rosin wrote:
However, I guess the situation is very much the same as with
$CC and the compile script and that seems to work. I just don't
understand exactly how.
That's pretty much an
22 matches
Mail list logo
