From:	"Tim Van Holder" <tim DOT van DOT holder AT pandora DOT be>
To:	<djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com>
Cc:	"Richard Dawe" <rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
Subject:	Re: Package of libtool?
Date:	Tue, 19 Jun 2001 19:11:44 +0200
Message-ID:	<CAEGKOHJKAAFPKOCLHDIAEIDCEAA.tim.van.holder@pandora.be>
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Priority:	3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority:	Normal
X-Mailer:	Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
In-Reply-To:	<Pine.LNX.4.10.10106191429540.5716-100000@acp3bf>
Importance:	Normal
X-MimeOLE:	Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

> Hm... but doesn't it only do that if building of *shared* libraries is
> active? Since those are a non-issue for DJGPP anyway, can't we just
Not sure - but it's definitely used even for the objects built to
generate a static library.

> disable that whole branch of it once and for all, for a DJGPP port
> (effictively forcing the --disable-shared option for all DJGPP builds)? At
> least to me, that seems like the obvious thing to do.

I suppose.

> > Otherwise, libtool 1.4 seems to work very well (at least with
> autoconf 2.50
> > and a cvs automake).
>
> Which currently is a big stumbling block, IMHO. It's somewhat silly for
> a released version of one tool to require a (hacked) CVS-only version of
> some other to work properly. gnu.utils.bug is currently discussing this.

I don't know if 2.50/1.4-cvs is required; that's simply what I have
installed, and it seems to work fine.
Anyway, once automake 1.5 is released, there would not be a problem for
us - it's ok for a DJGPP package to require another DJGPP package, even if
it's a very recent one.

- Raw text -