Drazen Kacar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > But keep in mind that it's not a catch-all solution and don't
> > > promote it as such.
> >
> > I don't believe anyone's been doing that.
>
> I'm sorry. I must have misinterpreted your "I'm now totally convinced."
Yes you did. I wasn't saying "I'm now totally convinced that libtool is the
all-singing all-dancing solution to all of life's problems." I was saying
"I'm now totally convinced that utilizing libtool rather than reinventing
the cross-platform-linking-to-shared-libraries wheel is a good approach."
> > > If it doesn't work on some platform, people will send patches. Another
> > > reason not to use complicated build tools unless really necessary is that
> > > you limit the user base which can send patches.
> >
> > Huh?
>
> Could you estimate a percentage of Unix users who can write portable sh
> scripts? Portable meaning it would be suitable for inclusion in autoconf
> results, ie. configure scripts. Or libtool scripts.
So how does using libtool make it harder for people to send patches than if
we implemented the linking-to-shared-library stuff in configure.in? They
have the same portable sh script requirement.
In fact, I'd say it's easier for people to send patches if libtool is a
separate modular piece doing just what it does, vs. putting all that
complication into configure.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.
