Hallo Ralf, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > C'mon Gary, two questions: is it *possible* to provide the old behavior > without too much pain?
I can't think of a way to do it cleanly :-( But I have no objections in
principle. How much machinery is there to make the config.status parts
of AC_OUTPUT work? Maybe we can create an _LT_OUTPUT macro to generate
libtool at the end of LT_CONFIG?
> Would that destroy some cool abstraction or some
> really fundamental thing?
It means that we no longer have to run configure twice, and cleans up the
the LT_INIT (nee AC_PROG_LIBTOOL) code path immensely. I really don't
want to go back to the old way of doing things... it was a mess. However,
there are certainly advantages to being able to call libtool from within
configure.
> Or are you just waiting for a patch to do this? (ok, that was three
> questions now).
I was hoping that we would be able to factor the common lt_* variable
tests into new LT_* macros for people to use.
> Sander, please don't start implementing such a thing *yet*. I don't
> think going this route is a good idea, but at least I think you should
> wait until we are through with it.
Seconded.
Sander, if you want to check whether a particular library is shared,
we should be able to write a macro for you to figure that out without
actually needing to roll and run an entire libtool script. Or is
there more to your problem than that?
Cheers,
Gary.
--
Gary V. Vaughan ())_. [EMAIL PROTECTED],gnu.org}
Research Scientist ( '/ http://tkd.kicks-ass.net
GNU Hacker / )= http://www.gnu.org/software/libtool
Technical Author `(_~)_ http://sources.redhat.com/autobook
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Libtool mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
