Re: libtool (branch-1-5) report

[Robert Millan]

On Thu, Sep 25, 2003 at 11:10:30AM +0200, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
>    Thanks! Could you also try HEAD? It's not very clear wether the
>    next release will be 1.5.1 or 1.6, although 1.6 will be there
>    roughly in a pair of months.
> 
> libtool from HEAD fails at one test (mdemo2-make.test), I didn't have
> the time to check what went wrong, but will do that today.

Note that libtool checks are known for not being very reliable. It may well
be that the check fails for external unrelated factors.

Try to repeat automatedly the build & check a few times, the results are likely
to vary.

>    There's also the question that the "gnu*)" test case in libtool.m4
>    doesn't have as many defined variables than other GNU-like
>    systems. Comparing to "kfreebsd*-gnu" and "knetbsd*-gnu", the
>    following are missing:
> 
>      shlibpath_overrides_runpath=no
>      dynamic_linker='GNU ld.so'
> 
>    Any comments on this? Perhaps we should ask the libtool
>    maintainers.
> 
> shlibpath_overrides_runpath should be set.

What to? I assume they're processed by gnu ld.so, then "no" is the right
answer for all of GNU and friends?

Btw could you send the patch for that? My "accept patch without signing papers"
quota for libtool is reaching its limit.

> What is dynamic_linker
> used for? I only looked breifly at libtool, and it seems that it is
> only used to print what linker we are using.  If thats the case then I
> think we should just stick with the default which is a bit more
> informative then "GNU ld.so" (the default is "gnu0.3 ld.so").

Maybe we'd ask them, but I don't it really matters, we're always in time to
change it later.

-- 
Robert Millan

"[..] but the delight and pride of Aule is in the deed of making, and in the
thing made, and neither in possession nor in his own mastery; wherefore he
gives and hoards not, and is free from care, passing ever on to some new work."

 -- J.R.R.T, Ainulindale (Silmarillion)