autotools hurts my brain; it's a monster out of control
Ralf Corsepius
rc040203 at freenet.de
Fri Dec 5 05:52:25 UTC 2008
On Fri, 2008-12-05 at 00:28 -0500, Peter Jones wrote:
> Responding to the correct mailing list for this discussion. Cc:ing the other one.
>
> Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > John Dennis wrote:
> >> I've had my fill of autotool problems (especially libtool)
> >
> > Don't throw in libtool with the rest. libtool was available in the
> > spirit of the auto tools only in its very first version (which of those
> > reading this only Jim and Tom will know).
Right, ... and libtool-2 is a completely different beast once again.
Future will tell if it improves or worsens the situation.
It definitely cleans up part of the mess older libtools suffered from.
> I agree that a Linux-only replacement for libtool should be used, if at all. So
> why isn't there one available in Fedora that deps on "libtool" will pick by default?
Such a tool would widely contradict libtools purposes (portability).
I.e. such a tool will only help "linux-only packages" and package for
which portability to other OS is of minor interest (such as glibc).
Ralf
More information about the fedora-devel-list
mailing list