[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Thu, 7 Oct 2004 20:35:26 +0200
> Han-Wen Nienhuys <address@hidden> writes:
> > address@hidden writes:
> >> I'd like to see what Marius thinks, but we might be able to remove
> >> libguile-ltdl in 1.7 now. I'd be more hesitant to do so in 1.6,
> >> unless it was only for cygwin. Removing a library isn't a backward
> >> compatible change.
> > Why not make it a configuration option? Then we don't throw away the
> > work of infrastructure for making the forked libtool.
> I'm OK with dumping libguile-ltdl altogether in 1.7, if we don't think
> we're going to pursue enhancements anytime soon. We can always add it
> back later, and a --disable-libguile-ltdl option sounds like it might
> be a reasonable way to handle the problem in 1.6 if the fix for
> libguile-ldtl for cygwin is too hard.
> Although if it's just cygwin, and if libguile-ltdl has *never* worked
> there, then another alternative might be to just disable it when
> cygwin is detected.
The problem is that both the platform (cygwin / gcc conventions) and
libtool are heavily in flux. I believe you need to get either the
latest Cygwin source release, or libtool CVS to get it working
correctly. I don't know which one, and frankly, I don't want to know.
This is also why I think it is a bad idea to put libtool in GUILE: it
is a lowlevel library and it can change rapidly in response to
Han-Wen Nienhuys | address@hidden | http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen