[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: transitive shared library dependencies and installation

From: wferi
Subject: Re: transitive shared library dependencies and installation
Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2020 21:47:02 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux)

Roumen Petrov <address@hidden> writes:

> address@hidden wrote:
>> Roumen Petrov <address@hidden> writes:
>>> address@hidden wrote:
>>>> I'm experimenting with the attached skeleton project on a Debian buster
>>>> system (autoconf 2.69-11, automake 1:1.16.1-4 and libtool 2.4.6-9):
> Debian is key word.
> Libtool is patched, not FSF.


> With and without new dtags result will be the same.

Very well possible, it's just one difference I happened to know about.

> It is long history It starts with 1* (1.5) libtool . Libtool 1.5 has
> some issues with multiple dependent libraries (more then two).
> From debian was proposed a patch related to library
> dependencies. Unfortunately patch break existing regression test. From
> debian never was proposed version that pass regression test.
> Libtool 2.0 fixes his issues related to multiple libraries. On the
> same Debian did not stop to contribute patch that breaks libtool.
> As result when I decide to build something from source always to
> updated sources to FSF version.
> So the right question is did reporter test with FSF version?

I'm the reporter, and I didn't test any other version, as I wasn't even
sure whether my example was correct and was supposed to work.  Could you
please provide some keywords to search for so that I can dig up the
details of the above story?  At the moment Debian carries 21 patches for
libtool, if I could show that one of them breaks a valid use case, that
would constitute a strong reason for dropping it.

reply via email to

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