[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: libtool.m4-mingw-lib-searchdirs-01.patch
From: |
Robert Boehne |
Subject: |
Re: libtool.m4-mingw-lib-searchdirs-01.patch |
Date: |
Tue, 31 Jul 2001 17:58:46 -0500 |
Ouch is right, I should have seen that it was already done. I was
attempting
to keep the patch queue down but it looks like I got a bit overzealous.
My bad!
Robert
Guido Draheim wrote:
>
> Robert Boehne wrote:
> >
> > OK, I'm checking this in.
> >
> > Robert
> >
>
> please no!
>
> I noticed later that it is a better idea to just use $PATH_SEPARATOR
> in the last sed-part and make sure that this very variable does exist.
> Currently it is implicitly done through initialisation order, but
> one could even attach an AC_REQUIRE at the top of this very DEFUN.
> I talked about it later on, and I did think that it would be done as
> last communicated - see the last mail from Gary (!!!!!) that does also
> contain `sed -e /-print-search-dirs/s,/;/,/$PATH_SEPARATOR/,` as the
> proposed patching scheme - there's no more needed. The rest of what
> there is in patch-01 happens to be just a bit overcautious, and
> I don't think anymore that it is actually needed as such. The simple
> patch has shown to be sufficient for quite a while now.
>
> What makes me wonder - Gary has already done the simple patch!!!!
> - it is in version 1.202 of libtool.m4 - and the version 1.208 does
> now contain a doubled patch about sys_lib searchdirs mingw fixup.
>
> Ouch, Guido
>
> P.S. Here's that patch that I did send named as patch-02 - apart
> from what that sed-line above would do, it adds that AC_REQUIRE.
> May be I'll better make up another one if anyone here feels that
> adding AC_REQUIRE is a good thing. But as I see it - may be it
> is a good thing to quickly remove that patch-01 that has gone on
> top of Gary's 1.202 patching on the same topic. Sorry for all
> the inconveniences....
>