Re: pr-msvc-support merge

[Ralf Wildenhues]

* Peter Rosin wrote on Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 12:49:18AM CEST:
> Ok, let's take a step back. This is no longer really merging
> work from the branch, so since A) using MS lib as archiver isn't
> essential for MSVC support (at least I don't think so, I can't
> remember any case where binutils ar hasn't worked for me, but
> ar creates archives that are different so I don't really like
> the situation) and B) by the looks of it it will have little to
> do with patching libtool anyway, I think it might be better
> to leave the archiver work behind for a bit.

That's fine with me, too.

> By bringing a standalone script to the automake list that will
> (at the moment, and for the foreseeable future) only be of use
> if you want to use MS lib as archiver, but will still add
> another file to "all" packages, I feel that there is a risk that
> the benefit will be deemed too small when compared to the cost.
> ltmain is already large and a few extra lines will not be noticed
> by that many people.

Might be true, yes.  We could introduce Automake options for w32
support, but I can see why you are not keen to go that way, as it
would prevent support out of the box.

> The above may sound as if I'm opposed to moving the script to
> automake, but I'm not. I'm mostly afraid of the script ending up
> where the cccl script - or should I say script_s_ - ended up.

Well, I sort of figured that the 'compile' script could end up absorbing
quite a bit of the cccl functionality so to make it unneeded.  But hey,
let's be honest, somebody would have to do this work, because I don't
have the resources to do it.

> Attaching a very rough first cut, but I don't intend to work on
> this at the moment as explained at the top. I'll post a mail
> addressing the next patch on the branch soonish instead.

Thanks.  I hope Gary keeps up the momentum on this (and I'll try hard to
not be a blocker ;-)

Cheers,
Ralf