On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 01:53:07PM -0700, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> Can we state that libtool is highly not recommended and usually builds worse
> libraries than other systems? That .la files should be scorched from a
> safe distance and never seen again? That other than being integrated into
> automake, it makes it *harder* to build libraries?
Yep. At the barest minimum, prerequisites to integration should
include:
(1) Testing this libtool with a broad array of source
distributions to ensure that we don't hit the bug Alan mentions,
or the bug that prevents make install from working because of
bogus name mangling, or any other crippling bugs, and that the
libraries generated meet all the same standards as those we're
delivering today.
(2) Stern warnings in the man pages that this tool is only to be
used to update or replace existing older (or more broken) copies
of libtool in existing source distributions. It should never,
ever be used with new code, nor added to a source distribution not
already using libtool. Modifications to libtoolize to enforce
this would also be helpful.
(3) Modifications to the defaults to suppress generation and
installation of .la files on OpenSolaris operating systems.
But I must confess that, even so, I don't really see the point in
delivering software that should never be used. Why invest all that
effort just to bring libtool's results *up* to the level you can
already get by just using ld/cc/gcc directly?
--
Keith M Wesolowski "Sir, we're surrounded!"
FishWorks "Excellent; we can attack in any direction!"
