> See: https://github.com/vim/vim/blob/master/src/configure.ac#L1878-L1879 . > What I quoted is part of src/configure.ac in our official repository. > > > And, the first two lines of those snippets of code are identical with each > other except for, in the latter snippet, the comments given by someone. >
I don't understand what you are implying here. > That's exactly what the code tells me. I've already known about that. Wasn't clear for me from your comments, sorry. > That will never happen: After applying my patch, the relevant part of > configure.ac becomes > > > > if test "$librubyarg" = "libruby.a" -a ! -f "$rubylibdir/$librubya"; > then > dnl Workaround for the case where $librubyarg is set to non-existent > dnl libruby.a. Use the shared library instead. This happens with > Mac > dnl OS X 10.3. > librubyarg="-lruby" > fi > RUBY_LIBS="-L$rubylibdir $librubyarg $RUBY_LIBS" > > > It is clear from the code above that RUBY_LIBS includes $librubyarg which is > to be set to '-lruby' if $librubyarg is libruby.a and if the file > $librubydir/$librubya does not exist, where $librubya is "libruby.a" for 10.3. Apologies, my mistake. Didn't follow you code thoroughly enough. > So, when you ask someone for something, how about making more attempt to make > your questions look more well-posed or intelligent? If you are referring to me asking to substantiate your claim about OS X 10.3, I see no way how that could look ill-posed or in-intelligent. If you are referring to the thread itself, I'm under the assumption that I didn't ask anything except discussing the possible implications of the proposed patch; more than that, I simply submitted a proposal here with the explanation of what are my reasons for believing this is a bug. That can be clearly implied from the title and the original message. Judging from the current state of discussion, I believe both patches are viable. I don't see why you don't share this opinion. And I believe that this discussion has been fruitful up to this point, but not enough to come up with a definite and comprehensible argument for any of the given patches. My initial intention was to provide minimally invasive patch, that would fix the problem once and for all, but I had my reservations about the whole librubyarg/librubya thing, which seemed wrong and confusing to me (and still does seem wrong). I feel like there is either something incorrect in the logic here, or there were just too many corrections made, which completely shadowed the initial logic and should be sorted out for good. -- -- You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist. Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
