Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Hi Peter,
* Peter O'Gorman wrote on Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 04:01:20PM CET:
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Intended before 2.2?
Does not have to be (similarly, this one could be considered cosmetic,
and wait 'til after 2.2 - I'll leave that up to you).
If you ask me, you can
I've applied this to not depend upon aclocal. If it's used, it will
pull in AM_CONDITIONAL, so no difference in that case.
Cheers,
Ralf
2008-01-16 Ralf Wildenhues [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* libltdl/m4/ltdl.m4 (_LT_ENABLE_INSTALL): Use AM_CONDITIONAL
only if defined. Allows to use
* Ralf Wildenhues wrote on Sat, Jan 12, 2008 at 03:15:03PM CET:
So I ask to please clarify once and for all the order in which things
should be (including a notice in NEWS), the rationale for it, and please
to make it clear in the manual whether LTDL_INIT requires that LT_INIT
also be called
On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 08:07:41PM +0100, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
* Ralf Wildenhues wrote on Sat, Jan 12, 2008 at 03:15:03PM CET:
So I ask to please clarify once and for all the order in which things
should be (including a notice in NEWS), the rationale for it, and please
to make it clear
Hi Peter,
* Peter Rosin wrote on Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 08:13:59PM CET:
On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 08:07:41PM +0100, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] macro (after the call to @samp{LTDL_INIT}
Is the second instance a typo? Should be LT_INIT, right?
Yes.
However, as usual, I don't
When the user copies the libtool macros into aclocal.m4 (which is
discouraged but something we support), the 333 patch causes a nice
failure in a third-party package:
[Running] /tmp/libtool/install/libtool-2.1/bin/libtoolize --automake --copy
/tmp/libtool/install/libtool-2.1/bin/libtoolize:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
However, as usual, I don't feel qualified to review other aspects
of this patch...
Well, thanks anyway for spotting this typo!
With this change, I am ok with the documentation updates. However, I
am fairly confident that old libtool
On Mon, Jan 14, 2008 at 11:06:00PM +0100, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
* Peter O'Gorman wrote on Mon, Jan 14, 2008 at 11:00:35PM CET:
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Since repeatedly nobody stepped forward to do this, I wrote that patch
myself now. OK to apply to HEAD?
Yes. Thank you.
Done,
Hallo Ralf,
Thanks for the fast fixes!
On 16 Jan 2008, at 14:22, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
OK to apply?
I have some nits first. Please commit once they are addressed.
2008-01-16 Ralf Wildenhues [EMAIL PROTECTED]
New variable LIBLTDL_DEP for use in output_DEPENDENCIES.
*
Hi Bob,
* Bob Friesenhahn wrote on Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 01:17:58AM CET:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
However, as usual, I don't feel qualified to review other aspects
of this patch...
Well, thanks anyway for spotting this typo!
With this change, I am ok with the
Hallo Ralf,
On 17 Jan 2008, at 13:06, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 05:29:17AM CET:
On 16 Jan 2008, at 14:22, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Also clarify that `${top_build_prefix}' may be used in place of
`${top_builddir}/'.
This is a
On 17 Jan 2008, at 12:47, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
However, I
am fairly confident that old libtool documentation recommended the
opposite order, and opposite order was likely required at that time.
I can't find any mention toward the relative order of AC_PROG_LIBTOOL
and AC_LIB_LTDL in
Hi Gary,
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 05:29:17AM CET:
On 16 Jan 2008, at 14:22, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
OK to apply?
I have some nits first. Please commit once they are addressed.
Addressed and committed as noted below. Thanks for your quick review.
* NEWS:
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 06:20:31AM CET:
On 17 Jan 2008, at 03:37, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
OK to apply this patch to fix it and some other cases?
Yes please.
Done as below, thanks.
Our libtoolize test coverage is still extremely poor. When you commit
could you also
14 matches
Mail list logo
