[PATCH]: mknetrel builds Guile #3: libtool

[Charles Wilson]

Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:

> Christopher Faylor <cgf@redhat.com> writes:
> 
> 
>>On Tue, Jul 09, 2002 at 02:14:16AM +0200, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
>>
>>>  - fixes and preparations for building with libtool
>>>
>>>
>>Sorry, but I don't like this one.  Does libtool *really* need to run
>>ld directly?  That seems ill advised to me.  It's usually better to
>>just run gcc.
>>
> 
> Ok.  So libtool is probably still broken.  I'm not going to fix
> libtool and cannot allow myself to spend too much extra time on this.
> (Actually, I've spent so much time on Guile and Cygwin the past week,
> that I had complaints from a Lily developer; we're gearing up for
> 1.6). In the meantime, I must see Guile being packaged.
> 
> I've offered you a, as I think, fairly clean and concise workaround to
> build libtool DLLs with mknetrel, with Guile as a nice working example
> for others to follow.  As it stands, I don't see a good way now to use
> mknetrel to build Guile, so I probably won't bother you with patches
> to build Guile (or libtool packages) with mknetrel.


I think you made the right decision to go ahead with guile for now.  You 
can always release the next version/update of guile using mknetrel 
if/when it will do what you need.

But don't give up on mknetrel -- it is GOOD that cgf is going slow and 
careful.  Since he uses mknetrel to package the 30 or more packages that 
he maintains, any breakage of mknetrel could create severe problems -- 
for him and for the rest of us. :-)

Slow and steady wins the race.  You don't have reach the "ultimate 
solution" with mknetrel right away.  Come back to it after lily-1.66, 
and see how you can work with cgf's requirements.

--Chuck