On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 08:07:41PM +0100, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * Ralf Wildenhues wrote on Sat, Jan 12, 2008 at 03:15:03PM CET:
> >
> > So I ask to please clarify once and for all the order in which things
> > should be (including a notice in NEWS), the rationale for it, and please
> > to make it clear in the manual whether LTDL_INIT requires that LT_INIT
> > also be called or not (some examples given in the manual carry LTDL_INIT
> > but do not mention LT_INIT at all).
>
> OK to apply this fix?
[snip]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] macro (after the call to @samp{LTDL_INIT}
Is the second instance a typo? Should be LT_INIT, right?
However, as usual, I don't feel qualified to review other aspects
of this patch...
Cheers,
Peter
