libtool-patches
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH] Document wrapper changes.


From: Charles Wilson
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Document wrapper changes.
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 14:12:17 -0500
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.8.1.23) Gecko/20090812 Thunderbird/2.0.0.23 Mnenhy/0.7.6.666

Charles Wilson wrote:
> * NEWS: Indicate new feature and incompatibility.
> * doc/libtool.texi [Linking executables]: Mention wrapper
> executables, in addition to wrapper scripts. Add menu referencing
> subsection 'Wrapper executables for programs'.
> [Wrapper executables for programs]: New subsection. Documents
> cwrapper rationale and command line options.
> ---
> This patch adds documentation for the new wrapper command line
> options (which apply to both the wrapper /script/ and to the
> wrapper /executable/).  However, because the options are of
> primary interest with respect to the wrapper exes, I've kept
> the documentation in the page specific for those, with a note
> that the script also supports the options.

Ping?
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libtool-patches/2009-07/msg00015.html

This is the third of a series of three patches, that encompass
previously proposed changes to the wrapper "system".  This one just
documents what the other two did.

It arose as a result of discussions surrounding
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libtool-patches/2009-06/msg00031.html

> However, Ralf said:
>> I'd consider documenting --lt-dump-script the cementation of
>> a bad API.
> So, as a compromise we could could modify this documentation patch
> to just not /document/ that option, while retaining all the other
> documentation/discussion of the w-exe and the --lt-debug option.

More discussion of this, please? I'm certainly willing to update the
patch, but...I need a go/no-go.


I'm going to be (re)raising all of my old, outstanding patches over the
next week. Some, I think, are OK for immediate push, even 'relatively
close to 2.2.8'.  Others may be too big a change to consider at this
point, and that's fine.  Just let me know if you guys think a particular
patch should be deferred until post-2.2.8 and I'll take it off the table.


This one, I think is OK for pre-2.2.8, pending resolution of the
doc/no-doc of --lt-dump-script issue -- what do you guys think?
OK to push? Revise?

--
Chuck




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]