This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [patch] releases.html
Zack Weinberg <zackw@Stanford.EDU> writes:
> I would argue that if we can do it with substantially less complexity
> and fragility than libtool, then duplicating the effort is worth it.
> And I would argue that we can. Existence proof: perl5 does not use
> libtool, yet manages to generate and use shared libraries _and_
> dynamically loaded modules in the course of its build. Without
> insisting on any particular compiler. I have trouble imagining that its
> build system can be _worse_ than libtool.
However, Perl uses metaconfig, which has the approximate complexity of
autoconf plus libtool. It's using a very similar sort of software suite
as autoconf/libtool, just with a different origin and style.
Russ Allbery (email@example.com) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>