From: Tim Wilkinson (tim@transvirtual.com)
Date: Tue Nov 10 1998 - 16:55:53 EST
I recall the 'libtool' stuff coming up before - so I typed it at my Redhat linux
prompt and it turns out that it's not installed here and, I suspect, not
installed in other places either.
Now if we want to use libtool I'd like it to be used only where it's present, and
if not for things to still work (is this asking too much?).
As for automake, what exactly does this buy us (it's been a *long* time since
I looked at automake)?
Cheers
Tim
> Forwarded message:
> >
> > Someone has already posted a patch to automake/libtoolize Kaffe, but
> > it was never installed :-(
> >
> > A pity, because it would make shared library handling *much*
> > easier and more portable...
> >
>
> Well, Alexandre, don't complain. You have write privileges and
> are familiar with automake. You can implement it, get our feedback
> and commit it if it's convincing. (*)
>
> Also, I don't think anybody ever posted such a patch. From my recollection,
> the lack of libtool was lamented, but no solution was put forth.
> Back then, I raised a few concerns regarding availability, portability, etc.
> I'm still not convinced. I tried automake with japhar, and hit a bug
> right away that Tom Troney asked me to track down. There's no way for
> me to do that, given that I don't want to get into the business of
> debugging other people's perl scripts. (**)
>
> - Godmar
>
> (*) This sentence shows something that becomes apparent sometimes:
> the lack of a decision procedure for this project. I see different
> models:
>
> a) The Linux model where Linus == Tim. Tim decides what patches go in.
>
> b) A voting model. I think that's how Apache does things. You need a certain
> number of yes votes, and there's also the possibility of vetoing.
> We could restrict the veto right to Tim or something.
>
> Each model has its advantages and disadvantages. I am personally open
> to either one. The main advantage of the Tim model is of course
> coherency, etc. The main disadvantage of the Tim model is that it
> requires Tim to put time in active leadership for the public tree.
> That is, Tim would have to look at that stuff and voice an opinion
> in a reasonable amount of time. There is the potential that this
> might conflict with his business obligations. Except for this concern,
> I think Tim is perfectly capable of fulfilling that role. (Btw, what's
> funny to read is Eric Raymond's description of successful leaders of
> free software projects in his opensource.org Noosphere pamphlet.)
>
> Or do people feel we don't need such agreements? (I certainly want to
> keep the discussion/administration overhead down.)
>
> (**) related, automake requires perl5. Do all architectures that Kaffe
> covers have perl5?
-- Tim Wilkinson Tel: +1 510 704 1660 Transvirtual Technologies, Inc., Fax: +1 510 704 1893 Berkeley, CA, USA. Email: tim@transvirtual.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 23 2000 - 19:57:02 EDT