Re: libguile-ltdl

[Han-Wen Nienhuys <hanwen@xs4all.nl>]

rlb@defaultvalue.org writes:
> Han-Wen Nienhuys <hanwen@xs4all.nl> writes:
> 
> > rlb@defaultvalue.org 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
platform changes.

-- 

 Han-Wen Nienhuys   |   hanwen@xs4all.nl   |   http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen 



_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel