Re: normal ltdl linking suggestions?

[Benoit SIGOURE]

On Jul 9, 2007, at 10:54 PM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:

> On Mon, 9 Jul 2007, Andreas Jellinghaus wrote:
>
> > Hi Gary,
> >
> > On Monday 09 July 2007 17:47:13 Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
> > > All the world is not Linux.  By not shipping libltdl at all, you're
> > > making life difficult for the users of hundreds of other  
> > > platforms who will
> > > have to  install their own libltdl just to build your package,  
> > > which many
> > > will likely decide is too much effort.
> >
> > well, my software works on linux, netbsd, freebsd, openbsd,  
> > dragonflybsd,
> > debian/bsd debian/hurd, mac os X, solaris and windows, and i think  
> > I got
> > success reports about aix and hpux, and embedded linux systems.
> > I don't remember getting negative reports, so don't think the current
> > situation without a copy of ltdl is bad. also at least two  
> > projects are
> > libraries used by other applications, in one situation the library is
> > actually an implemention of an ABI plugin standard.
>
> Your approach is outright heresy.  With this approach, users would  
> simply install a copy of GNU 'autobuild' prior to building all  
> other packages.  This would result in no need for embedded  
> autoconf, automake, and libtool in all the packages.  Shame on you  
> for suggesting such an approach.  Go stand in a corner.

I'm not sure I understand why you're saying this.  Did you mean s/no  
need/need/?

--
Benoit Sigoure aka Tsuna
EPITA Research and Development Laboratory

PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part