"Edward J. Sabol" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Drazen, you've done a excellent job of explaining the problems that libtool
> has on Solaris (and possibly other platforms). Personally, I would classify
> most of these as bugs in libtool. One or two sound like feature requests to
> me, but they do sound like reasonable requests and probably should be
> implemented. In either case, IMHO, the preferred course of action would be to
> get the bugs in libtool fixed instead of going around telling package
> maintainers that they shouldn't use libtool. Have you contacted the libtool
> maintainers and itemized the bugs you've found and your proposed solutions?
> Or better yet, have you submitted patches? If you have and the libtool
> maintainers are unresponsive to your concerns, then I'll agree you have a
> legitimate beef here. Personally, I think using libtool is a big win for
> package maintainers, who shouldn't have to keep re-inventing the same wheel
> over and over again. That assumes any libtool deficiencies you've cited can
> be fixed, of course.
>
> Just my two cents,
> Ed
Thanks, Ed. Glad I'm not the only one that doesn't think libtool is the
spawn of Satan, and can see the value in code-reuse.
The other day I subscribed to the libtool mailing list and asked why the
AM_PROG_LIBTOOL macro doesn't cause the configure script to use libtool
during its test links. One of the libtool maintainers answered very
promptly, saying it's been on his TODO list for some time, and that code
contributions would be appreciated.
Rather than rail away on the wget mailing list about deficiencies of
libtool, perhaps our time would be more productively spent writing patches
and sending them in.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Harkless | To help prevent SPAM contamination,
GNU Wget co-maintainer | please do not mention this email
http://sunsite.dk/wget/ | address in Usenet posts -- thank you.
