On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 09:01:34PM +0200, Enrico Scholz wrote:
Axel.Thimm(a)ATrpms.net (Axel Thimm) writes:
>> 1. somebody has to write a patch against ltmain.sh and probably
>> libtool.m4. Quick look into ltmain.sh indicates that this is not
>> a trivial job (some archs do not support indirect linking and
>> need a graph like above).
> We currently care about Linux, so we'd need that patch for Linux at
> the beginning. More platforms could add themselves to the whitelist as
> they see fit.
Defining and evaluating a 'whitelist' in ltmain.sh might be a problem...
Wow, looks like there already exists such a patch and that this patch
only changes about a dozen lines. So much for a non-trivial job. ...
I raised this up on the libtool list, which is probably better than
guessing around. Looks like Debian is using this patch for some time
now. I was told that this is still not the best way to slice bread,
and am waiting for further details.
>> 2. somebody has to convince libtool people to apply this
patch. Does not
>> seem to be trivial either (look at the more or less trivial multilib
>> patch in the Red Hat libtool-package which is still not applied).
> I wouldn't derive from one patch to another. What you perhaps consider
> trivial and acceptable may be different for the upstream authors and
> vice versa. I also didn't notice any discussion about the multilib
> patch on the libtool list, so perhaps this wasn't even submitted?
Dunno; patch exists for 4 years already so I would wonder when it was never
submitted. I thought, RH packagers were active in libtool development but I
might be wrong here.
Did you take a look at the multilib patch? It breaks other Linux
distributions, which is why it was never submitted to
libtool-patches. Let's not blame upstream for that.
libtool has just received no love at all in Red Hat land for whatever
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net