On Jan 7, 2008, at 21:58, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Given the naive view that a larger version number implies
something a
bit more current and "-devel" implies something a bit more
development- oriented, shouldn't the libtool-devel port either be
renamed or deleted altogether?
The "-devel"
>> Given the naive view that a larger version number implies something a
>> bit more current and "-devel" implies something a bit more
>> development- oriented, shouldn't the libtool-devel port either be
>> renamed or deleted altogether?
Ryan> The "-devel" suffix indicates a d
On Jan 7, 2008, at 18:51, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was seduced by the libtool-devel port (v. 1.9f), which caused me to
deactivate the libtool port (v 1.5.24) in favor of it. As it turns
out, the
automake folks told me 1.9f is pretty old.
libtool-devel is unmaintained so it wouldn't surp
I was seduced by the libtool-devel port (v. 1.9f), which caused me to
deactivate the libtool port (v 1.5.24) in favor of it. As it turns out, the
automake folks told me 1.9f is pretty old.
The other kicker which got me to try libtool-devel was that the libtool port
doesn't actually install tools
