From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Rob Browning Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: Should we distribute libltdl? Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2005 10:20:27 -0600 Message-ID: <87sm34okok.fsf@trouble.defaultvalue.org> References: <87sm37vt8g.fsf@zagadka.de> <200503071751.02839.bkorb@veritas.com> <422DDD4C.F9DC5B7D@veritas.com> <20050308174505.GE8217@seid-online.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1110387265 20680 80.91.229.2 (9 Mar 2005 16:54:25 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 16:54:25 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Bruce Korb , rm@seid-online.de, guile-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Mar 09 17:54:24 2005 Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1D94OB-0004Q2-KM for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 09 Mar 2005 17:50:27 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1D94ct-0004Gc-Gt for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 09 Mar 2005 12:05:39 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1D94VG-0000rk-5w for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 09 Mar 2005 11:57:46 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1D94VD-0000rT-F6 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 09 Mar 2005 11:57:45 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1D94V8-0000Zo-DW for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 09 Mar 2005 11:57:39 -0500 Original-Received: from [66.93.216.237] (helo=defaultvalue.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1D93vA-0005jp-Ni for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 09 Mar 2005 11:20:28 -0500 Original-Received: from trouble.defaultvalue.org (omen.defaultvalue.org [192.168.1.1]) by defaultvalue.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE68A4086; Wed, 9 Mar 2005 10:20:27 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: by trouble.defaultvalue.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 961123C103B; Wed, 9 Mar 2005 10:20:27 -0600 (CST) Original-To: Marius Vollmer In-Reply-To: (Marius Vollmer's message of "Wed, 09 Mar 2005 16:08:07 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.1007 (Gnus v5.10.7) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux) X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org X-MailScanner-To: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:4846 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.devel:4846 Marius Vollmer writes: > 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. Hmm. I wonder what the chance is that a user will be able to get hold of the Guile source, but not the libltdl source. Is it high enough to justify keeping a normally unused copy of libltdl in our tree? -- Rob Browning rlb @defaultvalue.org and @debian.org; previously @cs.utexas.edu GPG starting 2002-11-03 = 14DD 432F AE39 534D B592 F9A0 25C8 D377 8C7E 73A4 _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel