Re: FYI: duplicate removal patch [Was Re: ok, new libtool for cygwinupdates]

[Michael Matz]

Ho,

On Tue, 3 Apr 2001, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
> > IMHO, any duplicate libraries should be removed on
> > the platforms where it is possible.
>
> Agreed.
>
> Unfortunately it is a surprising difficult thing to do properly.  My current
> thinking is that we should add a new configure time variable which will turn
> back on duplicate stripping (for *shared* libs only) on hosts where it is
> known to be harmless.

Which should be most hosts, so we would turn this on unless a platform is
known to misbehave.

> I don't know how we will recognize which libraries in the list are
> shared

At least for .la's we can tell easily.  For other's the code to check this
already is in place, but not run for pass_all platforms (I once wanted to
change libtool in exactly the now proposed way, but then noticed, that
sharedness wasn't readily available for pass_all's, and I wasn't sure if I
wanted to take the performance hit for doing the file_magic test
unconditionally).

> Considering it took 2 years for anyone to report the bug, but only 2 days for
> people to complain about the fix,

:-)

> I am beginning to think that we should deliberately ship 1.4 with the
> bug reintroduced.

For 1.4 at least I don't have an opinion.

> We can then fix it properly in the next release.
> Pragmaticallym, the half cocked fix in place right now seems to be
> more trouble than it is worth.  Comments?

If it would be restored in MLB it would at least make the diffs between
KDE's libtool and CVS-MLB some lines shorter ;-)


Ciao,
Michael.