Re: GNU Libtool 1.5.8 released.

[Peter O'Gorman]

Daniel Reed wrote:

> On 2004-08-11T10:06+0900, Peter O'Gorman wrote:
> ) Daniel Reed wrote:
> ) >   >   libtool-1.4.2-multilib.patch
> ) >   This patch is needed for multilib support.  It has been sent upstream
> ) >   but basically rejected in its current form as being too Red Hat specific.
> ) > [Is this still the case? Is there an alternate solution for this problem, or
> ) >  is .multilib still the only one?]

Thanks for the url. I have to agree with Scott, looks like adding this patch 
here would be a bad thing, it may break other linux distros. Someone, 
someday, will come up with a generic way of doing this that works on all 
flavours of GNU/linux. They don't seem to have done so yet.

> ) >   >   libtool-1.4.2-demo.patch (on x86_64 s390 s390x)
> ) >   Yes, this is just to disable several nopic tests: afaicr nopic is
> ) >   meaningless on those archs bicbw... ie a patch should really go upstream
> ) >   to skip those tests on those archs I guess.
> ) Well, if you can be bothered to make a real patch, we might look at it. A
> ) patch that simply removes tests from the Makefile.am is not a good thing[tm] 
> :).
>
> Would it be better to keep the test from running with an Automake
> conditional, or disable it in the test script itself? (I see tests being
> controlled both ways in Libtool.)
>
> tests/demo-nopic.test already skips itself if `config.guess` begins with
> "hppa"; should I just extend that check to skip x86_64 and s390?

I guess so.

> ) >   >   libtool-1.5-testfailure.patch
> ) >   This was contributed by Owen: would probably be worth trying to
> ) >   push it upstream - though I'm not entirely clear why/if it is needed.
> ) I can not understand the point of this one. Perhaps Owen can explain why it
> ) is needed.
>
> This was to address a warning generated by Automake. The affected files were
> being built to be included in both an ar library and a libtool library.
>
> demo/Makefile.am:
>    9: libhello_la_SOURCES = hello.c foo.c
>  125: libhell0_a_SOURCES = hello.c foo.c
>
> pdemo/Makefile.am:
>    9: libhello_la_SOURCES = longer_file_name_hello.c longer_file_name_foo.c 
> longer_file_name_foo2.c
>  125: libhell0_a_SOURCES = longer_file_name_hello.c longer_file_name_foo.c
>
> Owen's patch duplicates hello.c to hell0.c and makes libhell0_a_SOURCES use
> that instead of hello.c, etc.  The way I work around this in naim is to add
> an empty _CFLAGS for the libtool target (I believe this workaround was
> proposed on this list). Which would be more acceptable?

Ah, I see, I'll look at this later too.

Thank you,
Peter
--
Peter O'Gorman - http://www.pogma.com