Hi Gary,
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 12:52:44PM CEST:
> Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
>
> >Maybe we should add a couple of public #define's for ltdl API?
> >Like this:
> > #define LTDL_MAJOR 2
> > #define LTDL_MINOR 0
> > #define LTDL_REVISION 0
> > #define LTDL_RELEASE ((LTDL_
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Hi Gary,
Hallo Ralf!
Maybe we should add a couple of public #define's for ltdl API?
Like this:
#define LTDL_MAJOR 2
#define LTDL_MINOR 0
#define LTDL_REVISION 0
#define LTDL_RELEASE ((LTDL_MAJOR << 16) | (LTDL_MINOR << 8) | LTDL_REVISION)
so packages that ha
Hi Gary,
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Mon, Sep 19, 2005 at 01:22:38AM CEST:
> Repost. Easing back on the lt_ptr removal.
OK, I guess. We'll hurt a couple of people in any case.
I noticed some packages use some of the deprecated APIs
in their AC_CHECK_LIB tests, so they'll fail to find
libltdl the
Repost. Easing back on the lt_ptr removal.
ChangeLog|6 ++
NEWS | 13 +
doc/libtool.texi | 28
libltdl/ltdl.c | 26 --
libltdl/ltdl.h | 37 +
5 files chang
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> Hi Gary,
Hallo Ralf!
> * Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Sun, Sep 18, 2005 at 12:31:56AM CEST:
>
>>Okay to apply?
>>
>>Since we are explicity no longer supporting applications that don't
>>update to the new API with libtool-2.0, I've removed the deprecated
>>functions.
>
> I h
Hi Gary,
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Sun, Sep 18, 2005 at 12:31:56AM CEST:
> Okay to apply?
>
> Since we are explicity no longer supporting applications that don't
> update to the new API with libtool-2.0, I've removed the deprecated
> functions.
I have not seen a decision to that extent. Only t
Okay to apply?
Since we are explicity no longer supporting applications that don't
update to the new API with libtool-2.0, I've removed the deprecated
functions.
Cheers,
Gary.
ChangeLog|6 ++
NEWS | 13 +
doc/libtool.texi | 28
