[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: normal ltdl linking suggestions?
From: |
Bob Friesenhahn |
Subject: |
Re: normal ltdl linking suggestions? |
Date: |
Tue, 10 Jul 2007 09:31:03 -0500 (CDT) |
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007, Benoit SIGOURE wrote:
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/?
The above was my feeble attempt at humor. Sorry about that.
I think that building using an installed libtool is a fine idea as
long as your users are prepared to install the prerequisites.
Bob
======================================
Bob Friesenhahn
address@hidden, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/
GraphicsMagick Maintainer, http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/
- normal ltdl linking suggestions?, Andreas Jellinghaus, 2007/07/09
- Re: normal ltdl linking suggestions?, Gary V. Vaughan, 2007/07/09
- Re: normal ltdl linking suggestions?, Andreas Jellinghaus, 2007/07/10
- Re: normal ltdl linking suggestions?, Gary V. Vaughan, 2007/07/13
- Re: normal ltdl linking suggestions?, Andreas Jellinghaus, 2007/07/15
- Re: normal ltdl linking suggestions?, Gary V. Vaughan, 2007/07/15