FYI: fix order of -L flags added for libtool dep libs

2005-04-14 Thread Ralf Wildenhues
* Peter O'Gorman wrote on Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 02:43:37PM CEST: Ralf Wildenhues wrote: The depdepl part is darwin-specific. Tell me this is a non-issue and I will happily believe you. :) Looks like a non-issue. Alright. I believe you. :) I considered back-porting the change I made to

Autotest (was: Re: FYI: fix order of -L flags added for libtool dep libs)

2005-04-14 Thread Peter O'Gorman
Ralf Wildenhues wrote: FYI, I have applied the pending patch to branch-2-0, and the patch below to HEAD. It uses the new testsuite, and sure again feels a little like working around the limitations of Autotest. Suggestions for improvement welcome. We should also start to think about using the

Re: fix order of -L flags added for libtool dep libs

2005-04-11 Thread Ralf Wildenhues
[ Zachary, I have Cc:ed you because this may relate to an old bugreport by you, and I would like to make a test case for it if at all possible. See [4] for the archive of this thread so far. ] * Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 02:05:46PM CEST: Ralf Wildenhues wrote: Here is a

Re: fix order of -L flags added for libtool dep libs

2005-04-11 Thread Peter O'Gorman
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ralf Wildenhues wrote: | - *) deplibs=$deplibs $path ;; | + *) deplibs=$path $deplibs ;; This is different to the patch for Zachary's bug which was: - - *) deplibs=$deplibs $depdepl ;; + *) deplibs=$depdepl

Re: fix order of -L flags added for libtool dep libs

2005-04-08 Thread Ralf Wildenhues
* Ralf Wildenhues wrote on Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 09:23:46AM CEST: * Alexandre Oliva wrote on Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 08:57:43PM CEST: On Apr 4, 2005, Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The problem here is that, when we relink libA for installation, we start with tmp_libs=-lB -L/new

FYI: fix order of -L flags added for libtool dep libs

2005-04-08 Thread Ralf Wildenhues
Hi Gary, Alexandre, others, * Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 02:05:46PM CEST: Ralf Wildenhues wrote: Here is a patch with a test and your fix. OK to apply to branch-1-5 and forward-port? Yep, looks good to me. Thanks. Applied, with a slightly more verbose ChangeLog