Re: MinGW libtool DLL failure

[Soren A]

Earnie Boyd <address@hidden> wrote in 
news:address@hidden:

> Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
>> 
>> If libtool was intended to be an extension of Autoconf/Automake, then
>> it should certainly have been absorbed into Automake, and not exist as
>> a stand-alone utility at all.
>> 
> 
> Do you have examples of libtool use without autoconf and/or automake? 
> Why does libtool.m4 get installed into share/aclocal/?  AFAIK, libtool 
> without autoconf/automake doesn't exist.
> 
> Earnie.

Echo. I don't dispute that Bob might be correct but TTBOMK this is not
_common_ knowledge. After extensively messing around with building a
libtool from GNU cvs within the last 3 weeks, I can say that I see no
means by which libtool can readily be used anymore without Autoconf and
Automake being involved. Because they've nuked ltconfig, libtool seems
much less a stand-alone tool now. It seems as if the intention of the
PTB is that libtool shall become a de-facto extension of Automake. I'd
really like to know about examples of current libtool usage that
exercize libtool independently (in the absense of) Automake. 

It should be noted that I emphasize the amount of time I spent getting a
libtool built from cvs source because I approached the whole thing in
order to try to learn as much as I possibly could about libtool all in
one deliberate, thorough effort (something I've avoided doing for a long
time). In the course of this I found myself *VERY* annoyed by the fact
that the libtool manual at GNU.org is completely out of date WRT the
present structure of libtool. Also, the "Autobook" which readers should
probably be familiar with, that is hosted at RedHat.com, is also out of
date WRT the use of libtool as part of the Autotools. Both documents
talk about 'ltconfig' which no longer exists. 

So it's about as clear as mud that libtool can even be used at all
anymore without Automake being involved. It seems like the original
intention of libtool's author has been subverted in fact? 

If somebody reading this experiences a reactive impulse to the words
"annoyance" and "documentation" and the reflex action of posting a "well
its Free software you aren't paying for it why don't you write better
documentation and contribute it instead of griping" kind of response,
you can go take a flying leap AFAIAC. To be able to write
documentation for something you have to first UNDERSTAND the thing and
it seems impossible or nearly impossible to come to understand how
'libtool' now works (if you haven't been developing it all along)
anymore. The manual for libtool actually made good reading and seemed
splendidly clear, made me want to use the software. Then I discovered
that the manual has nothing much to do with reality anymore, it
describes software that no longer exists (that is no longer currently
being used / developed).  

Somebody who has been developing libtool all along has GOT TO take on
the job of updating the user documentation for that mess. It's gotten
far too complex for some new person to wade in and try to explain it
clearly. There's moaning needs, crying needs and then there's SCREAMING
needs. Updated documentation for libtool is of the lattermost variety. 

  All IMHO.
     Soren A

-- 
What do Internet Mailing Lists and crowded neighborhoods have in
common? Both will either drive you out or teach you how to ignore
barking dogs.