From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10441 invoked by alias); 25 Feb 2002 06:17:20 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 10313 invoked from network); 25 Feb 2002 06:17:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cygnus.com) (205.180.230.5) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 25 Feb 2002 06:17:17 -0000 Received: from cse.cygnus.com (cse.cygnus.com [205.180.230.236]) by runyon.cygnus.com (8.8.7-cygnus/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA02147; Sun, 24 Feb 2002 22:17:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from free.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br (vpnuser.sfbay.redhat.com [10.255.17.130] (may be forged)) by cse.cygnus.com (8.8.8+Sun/8.6.4) with ESMTP id WAA22410; Sun, 24 Feb 2002 22:17:06 -0800 (PST) Received: (from aoliva@localhost) by free.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g1P6H2w31601; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 03:17:02 -0300 To: Phil Edwards Cc: Jeff Sturm , Bryce McKinlay , Nic Ferrier , java@gcc.gnu.org, gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Get rid of libtool? [was Re: Makefile problems] References: <20020225010454.A27334@disaster.basement.lan> From: Alexandre Oliva Organization: GCC Team, Red Hat Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 22:24:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: Phil Edwards's message of "Mon, 25 Feb 2002 01:04:54 -0500" Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.0805 (Gnus v5.8.5) Emacs/20.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2002-02/txt/msg01462.txt.bz2 On Feb 25, 2002, Phil Edwards wrote: > I agree here; it seems we spend more time undoing libtool's abstraction > than libtool spends adding it. :-) Do you really mean this? I'd like to know of such situations, in which you had to undo libtool's abstraction. That's pretty sad. -- Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Red Hat GCC Developer aoliva@{cygnus.com, redhat.com} CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist Professional serial bug killer