On Tue, Jun 03, 2003 at 10:31:02PM -0500, Robert Boehne wrote:
> Marcus,
>
> If you have to depend on weak symbols, your platform list will
> be small enough that Libtool will be mostly a burden.
> I would advise you to craft your own make/configure magic instead.
Well, yeah. Personally, I consi
This is the Postfix program at host zappa.suse.com.
I'm sorry to have to inform you that the message returned
below could not be delivered to one or more destinations.
For further assistance, please send mail to
If you do so, please include this problem report. You can
delete your own text from
On Tue, Jun 03, 2003 at 07:43:52PM +0200, Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote:
> Albert Chin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [...]
>
> | --- libtool.m4.orig 2003-06-01 16:07:41.276467000 -0500
> | +++ libtool.m4 2003-06-03 10:22:57.667598339 -0500
>
> [...]
>
> | +AC_PROVIDE_IFELSE([AC_LIBTOOL_TAGS],,
On Tue, 3 Jun 2003, Albert Chin wrote:
>
> I think --with-libtool-languages and AC_LIBTOOL_TAGS are mutually
> exclusive. For example:
> AC_LIBTOOL_TAGS([C])
> AC_PROG_LIBTOOL
>
> and then --with-libtool-languages="C++" is useless because the C++
> glue code won't be in configure. --with-libtoo
Albert Chin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
| --- libtool.m4.orig 2003-06-01 16:07:41.276467000 -0500
| +++ libtool.m42003-06-03 10:22:57.667598339 -0500
[...]
| +AC_PROVIDE_IFELSE([AC_LIBTOOL_TAGS],,
| + [AC_LIBTOOL_TAGS([C C++ F77])])
Since the tag for C++ is called CXX and there
Why do we create the libtool tag header/footer like so:
BEGIN LIBTOOL TAG CONFIG: $tagname
END LIBTOOL TAG CONFIG: $tagname
Why not use $1:
@@ -3911,7 +3953,7 @@
available_tags=
# ### BEGIN LIBTOOL CONFIG],
-[# ### BEGIN LIBTOOL TAG CONFIG: $tagname])
+[# ### BEGIN LIBTOOL TAG CONFIG: $1])
On Tue, Jun 03, 2003 at 10:58:14AM -0500, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Jun 2003, Albert Chin wrote:
> > >
> > > AC_LIBTOOL_TAGS([c c++])
> > > AC_PROG_LIBTOOL
> >
> > This means we'd have to get rid of --with-tags. As it's not
> > documented, I'm for this. If someone specifies AC_LIBTOOL_TAGS
On Tue, 3 Jun 2003, Albert Chin wrote:
> >
> > AC_LIBTOOL_TAGS([c c++])
> > AC_PROG_LIBTOOL
>
> This means we'd have to get rid of --with-tags. As it's not
> documented, I'm for this. If someone specifies AC_LIBTOOL_TAGS, and
> say C++ isn't specified, I don't want AC_PROG_CXX dragged in.
I am als
On Tue, Jun 03, 2003 at 08:56:38AM -0500, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Jun 2003, Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote:
>
> > >>> "Albert" == Albert Chin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > Albert> I don't have a problem requiring AC_PROG_CXX, AC_PROG_F77, or
> > Albert> AM_PROG_GCJ bef
On Tue, Jun 03, 2003 at 08:56:38AM -0500, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Jun 2003, Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote:
>
> > >>> "Albert" == Albert Chin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > Albert> I don't have a problem requiring AC_PROG_CXX, AC_PROG_F77, or
> > Albert> AM_PROG_GCJ bef
On Tue, 3 Jun 2003, Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote:
> >>> "Albert" == Albert Chin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> [...]
>
> Albert> I don't have a problem requiring AC_PROG_CXX, AC_PROG_F77, or
> Albert> AM_PROG_GCJ before AC_PROG_LIBTOOL. Anyone see this as a problem?
>
> As a user I wouldn't care
11 matches
Mail list logo
