"Dan Harkless" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Libtool is not the be-all end-all answer to our linking problems,
> > even if we wish it were. Maybe these things are easier to achieve
> > with libtool than without it, but it doesn't come without a cost.
>
> Is autoconf the be-all end-all answer to our (non-shared-library)
> portability problems? Does it come without a cost?
The point is that we should weigh the costs and the benefits.
Autoconf comes with a *lot* of benefits. Automake on the other hand
has a few benefit, but the cost is IMO unacceptable. I haven't yet
decided about libtool, but on a first glance it seems that its
benefits are very dubious at best.
If it were only up to me, I would give libtool a few years to mature
before using it on my project. I'm just not confident in the thing.
This was not the case with Autoconf when I started using it.
> libtool may not be perfect, but it sure seems to me that an
> imperfect but usually correctly-functioning libtool is better than
> having --with-ssl simply fail unless you do a bunch of manual
> LDFLAGS/LIBS environment variable voodoo that's different on each
> platform.
It might be better to simply improve our configure platform support
than to suffer with libtool bug workarounds.
