[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: MinGW libtool DLL failure

From: Bob Friesenhahn
Subject: Re: MinGW libtool DLL failure
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 13:08:17 -0500 (CDT)

On Mon, 21 Oct 2002, Soren A wrote:
> >
> > 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.
> 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

This means that you are missing a major point about libtool, and one
that was considered to be vital by the original libtool author (Gordon
Matzigkeit).  The user can download the libtool package, do a
'configure', 'make', and 'make install', and then use libtool just as
described in the libtool user manual.  Sure, the libtool package
itself uses Autoconf/Automake, but once it is installed, libtool is
just a utility like any other utility.

> 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.

The FreeType library and libjpeg both use libtool without Automake.
The FreeType folks even go to the extent of using something besides
`make' (JAM).

> 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).

If there is a deficiency, then please submit a patch to correct it, or
at least report the *specific* deficiency so it can be fixed.

> 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.

I refer to the libtool documentation often, and it has rarely led me

By the way, CVS libtool now works under MinGW, so you should be much
happier about it.

Bob Friesenhahn

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]