[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Should we distribute libltdl?

From: tomas
Subject: Re: Should we distribute libltdl?
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 16:49:51 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.3i

On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 04:08:07PM +0100, Marius Vollmer wrote:
> address@hidden writes:
> > Can't guile distribute libltdl but only use
> > it iff there's no local version found (or if the user states her
> > intention by configure magic)?
> That is how it works right now.  I am not happy about the fact that
> Guile does this silently and that it is a configure decision that
> persists in the build tree.
> What I would be happy with is to include a copy of libltdl in the
> Guile distribution but to have it completely ignored by configure and
> the Makefiles.  When libltdl is not found in the system, a message
> could be printed that instructs the user to install libltdl, maybe by
> using the included sources.

Makes the most sense to me too. This way a user can decide whether
to let her packaging system deal with it or not.

Installing silently libltdl can be a source of woes (even statically
linking it, since Guile can be linked to other apps which themselves
may use a slightly different version of libltdl: watch Apache and
expat coming in differently via different modules: hours of fun).

Regards -- and thanks for the great work again

-- tomás

Attachment: pgpKRJlacDirm.pgp
Description: PGP signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]