On Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 08:12:53PM +0000, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> Hi Jacob,
>
> Jacob Meuser <jakemsr <at> jakemsr.com> writes:
> > On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 08:50:56AM +0000, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > > Jacob Meuser <jakemsr <at> jakemsr.com> writes:
> > > >
> > > > the following patch for the libtool port changes library_names_spec
> > > > to just '${libname}${shared_ext}$versuffix'.
> > >
> > > What's the rationale for this patch? Pointers to bug reports and/or
> > > changes
> > > to ld appreciated.
> >
> > the rationale is to not have symlinked libraries. I am under the
> > impression that this is not desired in OpenBSD ports/packages.
> > I could be wrong, but I thought this "policy decision" was made
> > at one point. that's why I asked for comments.
>
> Could you point me to discussion about this decision (so I don't write
> about stuff already beaten to death here)?
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=openbsd-ports&m=102587389016120
not really a discussion, but IMO rather clear. there are a few such
"remove the -release flag" patches in the ports tree, devel/guilib
for example.
of course, that post is quite old and I see now the -current libmf
installs the symlinked libs.
so I am curious myself, if this is an issue.
> > in other words, it's not addressing a bug, but a "policy decision".
>
> Hmm.
>
> > I have a question for you Ralf. shouldn't running aclocal
> > create/update aclocal.m4? this doesn't seem to work for me, which
> > is why the port copies the patched libtool.m4 to aclocal.m4.
>
> That's weird. Which aclocal version? The non-ancient ones support --force
> which should always update aclocal.m4. Is the libtool.m4 in the source tree?
sorry, my mistake there. I was confusing aclocal.m4 with acinclude.m4,
again.
> BTW, please Cc: me on replies, thanks (forgot that before, d'oh).
as you wish ;)
--
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
