This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Get rid of libtool? [was Re: Makefile problems]


In article <orzo1ucqjn.fsf@free.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br> you write:
>On Feb 25, 2002, Richard Henderson <rth@redhat.com> wrote:

>> How many people can fix problems with libtool when they occur?

>Err...  Zero? :-)

>Oh, you meant after they occur.  Perhaps half a person :-)

>> How many people can fix problems with make when they occur?

>Other than the maintainers of make?

Maintainers, plural.   Several makes, lots of maintainers.
I've seen people here in the past who can fix bugs in make that
don't seem to be make maintainers anyways.

As a guy who does both, I'm only tweaking libtool VERY reluctantly.
This thing is at least one harder of magnitude LESS maintainable than
a Makefile, and probably more. This partly comes from the fact that it
is impossible to debug shell scripts of such a size. This also comes from
the fact that libtool is incredibly bloated, and does really, really need
a complete redesign.

The redesign will only happen if someone who cares about it does it.
All that people like me will do is say `we shun libtool because it's
incredibly bloated and badly need a redesign, and our life is currently
much easier without it anyways'.

Out of the auto-suite, I can live with automake and its quirks, I can
live with autoconf and its quirks, heck, I can live with cygnus-configure
and its quirks... and I could very well live without libtool.

Okay, this looks like highly flammable material, but think about it.
I'm reasonably certain I'm alone in thinking like this. Do you want
libtool to go on ? stop being blind to its issues.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]