On Sat, 2008-11-01 at 00:33 +0100, Denis Leroy wrote:
Colin Walters wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 7:15 PM, Dan Nicholson <dbn.lists(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 2:21 PM, Colin Walters <walters(a)verbum.org>
wrote:
>>> The ideal of course would be to convince libtool upstream that trying
>>> to change the entire world to use libtool makes a lot less sense than
>>> having those few modules that interact with shared libraries have
>>> platform-specific code.
>> The libtool developers understand that the .la files aren't needed in
>> normal operation. The reason that they insist on keeping them is so
>> that `make uninstall' works since the .la files are the only place
>> that store information about the actual libraries (.so + links vs. .a,
>> etc.).
>
> Right - we have a "make uninstall", it's called "rpm -e".
Was a libtool fork ever attempted ?
Why fork it when you can just throw it away and forget it ever existed?
I just write proper Makefiles, and if I ever _want_ to spend a couple of
minutes watch some bizarre script trying to work out what type of
FORTRAN compiler I have on my system, I can write myself a little bash
script for that too.
--
David Woodhouse Open Source Technology Centre
David.Woodhouse(a)intel.com Intel Corporation