httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Ralf S. Engelschall" <>
Subject Re: Suggestion: shtool
Date Fri, 23 Apr 1999 21:28:58 GMT

In article <> you wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 23, 1999 at 08:36:34PM +0200, Ralf S. Engelschall wrote:

>> Exactly, the idea is the same as for libtool: When you need libtool's
>> functionality you treat libtool as a black box which is maintained carefully
>> externally by the author for all packages. And all a package author does is to
>> copy the latest version over to the package from time to time. The same idea I
>> follow now with shtool. I'll enhance and maintain in the future and when
>> people need "mkdir", "install", "guessos", etc. all they do is to copy over
>> the latest shtool version as they do it for libtool and friends.
> I hope that shtool is easier to maintain and debug than libtool, I have
> had only bad experiences with libtool. In all the cases where it was
> used I had to replace in the Makefiles with some sane command lines to
> create shared objects properly. And I found the libtool code itself to
> be a nightmare to debug.

Hmmm... I'd no problems with libtool. And that you've to adjust your Makefiles
is intended, of course.  The internals might be a nightmare, ok. But one
usually can treat libtool as a black-box, no?

                                       Ralf S. Engelschall

View raw message