[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [shell functions, was RE: solving of name conflicts in included . a]

From: Bob Friesenhahn
Subject: Re: [shell functions, was RE: solving of name conflicts in included . a]
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 18:37:37 -0600 (CST)

On Thu, 7 Nov 2002, Charles Wilson wrote:

> When will libtool-1.5 be released?   Before or after ac-2.56? (given
> that ac-2.55 will be released next week).
> Assuming that the autoconf people have not repudiated their plan to
> integrate shell functions starting in 2.56, then the decision to use
> them in libtool or not could be better stated as
> "Shall libtool-1.5 require autoconf-2.56?"

I don't see that introducing shell functions into libtool has any
bearing on the version of autoconf that libtool requires.

The argument you pose is political rather than technical.

The only question that needs answering is if using shell functions
will hurt libtool users, or if it will help libtool users.

Libtool's configure script is a wopping 584K.  The configure script
for ImageMagick is 1.1M, about half of which may be blamed on libtool.
It is not uncommon these days to find packages where the configure
script dwarfs the rest of the package.  If shell functions can allow
configure scripts which are 1/10th the size, and run 5X as fast, then
perhaps that should take precedence over the ability to run libtool on
a V7 system in a museum.

Bob Friesenhahn

reply via email to

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