Re: patch for "g++-x.x" named compilers

[Bob Friesenhahn]

This patch looks good to me except that 'depricated' should be
'deprecated'.

Bob

On Mon, 28 Oct 2002, Robert Boehne wrote:

> Hello!
>
> This patch adds a warning to users that forcing Libtool to
> guess the mode of operation is depricated, including changes
> to the documentation.  Have a look, and let me know if any
> changes are needed.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Robert
>
> Robert Boehne wrote:
> >
> > Aargh, Yes, I agree that this is a better route to
> > prevent breakage with upgrading in the cases where it
> > used to work.  I'll re-do the patch to depricate and
> > warn with corresponding changes to libtool documentation.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Robert
> >
> > Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sun, 27 Oct 2002, Albert Chin wrote:
> > > > > All right then, here it is.  This patch replaces the guessing
> > > > > of operation mode with an error message, and removes the variable
> > > > > default_mode as it is no longer used.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ok to commit?
> > > >
> > > > This means that people upgrading from 1.3.x or 1.4.x to 1.5.x will
> > > > have to retool how they invoke libtool. Do we really want to do this?
> > >
> > > It is true that the examples in the existing libtool documentation are
> > > making use of implicit mode detection.  In my opinion, this was a bad
> > > original design decision, but since the documentation doesn't cover
> > > the explicit mode option, I need to change the recommendation I made
> > > just a minute ago.
> > >
> > > Since the implicit mode detection is impossible to support properly, I
> > > recommend that the libtool documentation be updated, and that libtool
> > > issue a warning that the implicit mode is deprecated.
> > >

======================================
Bob Friesenhahn
address@hidden
http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen