[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: Charles Wilson
Subject: Re: [shell functions, was RE: solving of name conflicts in included . a]
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 20:45:54 -0500
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2

Bob Friesenhahn wrote:

"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.

Yes. The decision itself is a political one. "Shall libtool (and autoconf) continue to support museum pieces?" I was just posing the question in a different way -- trying to make the point (poorly, apparently) that the decision has already been made for us.

I really should've said "Shall libtool-1.5 be forever frozen at autoconf versions < 2.56" which is not quite the same thing. And of course, the answer to that question is no.

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

There's a novel concept. :-)

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.

Well, I like shell functions. And I think this whole decsion has been taken out the libtool-maintainers' hands, given the decision of the autoconf team.

Since autoconf (>= 2.56) will only work on systems whose shells support shell functions, and libtool requires autoconf, then libtool will only work on those same systems. Which means shell functions are available and we *can* use them. Whether we *should* use them or not is then a technical decision, resting on the arguments you put forward above.


reply via email to

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