Re: libdlloader.so ... die, die, die!

[Bob Friesenhahn]

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004, Peter O'Gorman wrote:

> Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> > How did the mandatory libdlloader.so beast come to be and how can we kill 
> > it?
>
> Gary did not seem to think this a showstopper for 2.0, if we all gang up and 
> each buy him a beer he may see things more clearly :)
>
> <http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gnu.libtool.patches/2891>

Clearly my opinion differs from Gary's in this regard, and I expect 
that my opinion will be shared by all existing libltdl users (except 
for perhaps Gary).  There is a point where the cost outweighs the 
merits.  Libltdl has gone from a directory containing only two source 
files and a trivial build to a complicated build containing multiple 
directories, many source files, and two libraries, one of which 
doesn't provide any user APIs.

This weekend I have been working on updating GraphicsMagick to use the 
2.0 libltdl.  It has been slow-going.  The first test build used the 
installed libltdl (which it should have) but all the C++ tests failed 
so I will have to look into that.

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