[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: libdlloader.so ... die, die, die!
From: |
Bob Friesenhahn |
Subject: |
Re: libdlloader.so ... die, die, die! |
Date: |
Sun, 21 Nov 2004 11:06:58 -0600 (CST) |
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