Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@sourceware.cygnus.com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@sources.redhat.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@sources.redhat.com Message-ID: <3BF390A6.7010407@ece.gatech.edu> Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 04:53:42 -0500 From: Charles Wilson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Peter Ring CC: "'cygwin@cygwin.com'" Subject: Re: AW: libxml2.dll, libxslt.dll, problems with executables linke d to dll's References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Peter Ring wrote: > Are there any advantages to any of these? Robert Collins' version is hacked to use the auto-import capabilities of newer binutils. No __declspec(dll[im? ex?]port) worries. But it's a fork from the official version. Eventually this will get folded back into the "real" libtool. > Are there any advantages to building libtool from the 1.4.2 source? Dunno. > Will libtool become part of the standard distribution? Probably. > Are we waiting for autoconf/automake/libtool to become a bit more > stable? We're waiting for: 1) the new setup (check!) 2) the end of the no-new-packages moratorium (check!) 3) the autoconf 2.13/2.52 automake 1.4p5/1.5 harmonization 3a) -src packaging standard...see cgywin-apps@ over the last week 4) Gary Vaughan (GNU libtool maintainer) to fold Robert's changes into the "real" libtool #4 is going to take some time, because Gary's got a new book coming out so time is at a premium. Therefore, there's little hurry for #3, but we're a-workin' on it. --Chuck -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/