[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: AM_LIBTOOLFLAGS, maude_LIBTOOLFLAGS, and LIBTOOLFLAGS
From: |
Ralf Wildenhues |
Subject: |
Re: AM_LIBTOOLFLAGS, maude_LIBTOOLFLAGS, and LIBTOOLFLAGS |
Date: |
Mon, 13 Dec 2004 08:10:01 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.4.1i |
* Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote on Sun, Dec 12, 2004 at 04:48:30PM CET:
> >>> "adl" == Alexandre Duret-Lutz <address@hidden> writes:
> >>> "Ralf" == Ralf Wildenhues <address@hidden> writes:
> adl> [...]
>
> Ralf> So, how about this? Let's have Automake include $(LIBTOOLFLAGS) in
> Ralf> their libtool invocation. The user can then use
> Ralf> LIBTOOLFLAGS=--silent
> Ralf> at either configure or make time. This approach is Automake-centric,
> Ralf> but other buildtools can do similar.
>
> adl> Sounds sensible to me. People have also asked this to specify
> adl> --preserve-dup-deps, and --tag=FOO in cases Automake cannot
> adl> guess it.
The --tag value would not really fit with LIBTOOLFLAGS, as that would be
used for more than one tag (in a package using more than one tag). YMMV.
> adl> Let's make it `$(AM_LIBTOOLFLAGS) $(LIBTOOLFLAGS)' with
> adl> `$(AM_LIBTOOLFLAGS)' replaced by `libfoo_la_LIBTOOLFLAGS' if it exists.
>
> adl> I'm working on this right now.
>
> Here is my proposal.
Other than the slight nit above, looks good to me. Thanks for working
on this.
Regards,
Ralf