Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 23:28:58 +0200
From: "Ralf S. Engelschall" <rse@engelschall.com>
To: new-httpd@apache.org
Subject: Re: Suggestion: shtool
Message-ID: <19990423232858.A58584@engelschall.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Organization: Engelschall, Germany.
Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org


In article <19990423214857.A27826@ans.helios.de> 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
                                       rse@engelschall.com
                                       www.engelschall.com