[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Status of libtool 2.2.X?



2008/10/10 Adam Jackson <ajax redhat com>:
>
> Most of the complexity in libtool (and autotools in general) is to
> support systems that simply are not worth supporting and that
> practically speaking don't exist anymore.  I'm being slightly flip in
> saying 'gcc -shared' but really not by much.  Honestly for any fringe
> platform the correct thing to do is port gcc/binutils/gmake first.

That's noble and all, but in the meantime I tend to like relying on
the years of experiences built into libtool. Taken a look at mesa's
bin/mklib lately? Tell me if you ever want to work on something like
that. You may have noticed how dolt doesn't touch the linking part of
libtool at all.

Something that people seem to forget about when bashing libtool is all
the flexibility it offers. Like convenience libraries? Like easily
deciding if you want static or shared libraries? Like having your
programs work while their in the source tree? Like having your so
version and symlinks handled automatically?

--
Dan


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]