[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.liballeg.org/allegro-developers Archives
]
On 2003-10-23, Eric <ebotcazou@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Should we switch to using libtool on mainline for the Unix port? We have at
> least a pretext (see bug #704903 on SF's tracker).
>
> Does anyone know how much of a change that would be wrt to the current
> makefile machinery?
Well, George did say this in 2002.
If you do want to try it, I think it shouldn't be too hard to
convert Allegro to use libtool, if you drop the unportable
command line switches (though maybe they do work on gcc, in
which case the current configure machinery can handle it
already). I don't think I'd go anywhere near using libtool to
generate executables; it generates the executable in a
subdirectory and a shell script in the current directory which
you're meant to use to invoke it... The idea is to support
linking against shared libraries that aren't installed yet and
aren't in the LD_LIBRARY_PATH.
The other thing libtool does is it automatically generates both
static and shared libraries (if both are available on the target
platform). This is kind of nice, it's very transparent, but it
makes some of Allegro's configuration redundant. But then if
you don't use libtool to link your executables and don't install
the libraries, you do need to know which it generated (you need
the path to the library).
About libtool'ing in general, well, I dunno. Whenever I've played with
projects using libtool, it's always felt a hinderance to development and
testing. I dunno why it has to go about things so strangely (dumbly),
and create so many bloody files (a problem common to the rest of the
damned GNU build tools). Unfortunately, the problem is addresses is
real, so I can't dismiss it entirely. That would be so much easier :-)
--
王浩禎