From: Bob F. <bfr...@si...> - 2000-12-29 01:24:12
|
If libwmf (and associated libraries) where to be built using GNU libtool (and therefore be available as shared libraries), there would be substantial benefit to packages (like ImageMagick) that need to link against shared libraries in some cases. Is this a direction that libwmf is expecting to go? Bob ====================================== Bob Friesenhahn bfr...@si... http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen |
From: F J F. <F.J...@sh...> - 2000-12-29 22:37:52
|
On Thu, 28 Dec 2000, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > If libwmf (and associated libraries) where to be built using GNU > libtool (and therefore be available as shared libraries), there would > be substantial benefit to packages (like ImageMagick) that need to > link against shared libraries in some cases. Is this a direction that > libwmf is expecting to go? This is in fact very easy to implement (using automake) - with one caveat: I have no experience with automake/libtool in non-Unix/Linux environments... The benefit of doing everything statically is that the Makefile can be nice, simple and generic. Ciao, Frank Francis James Franklin F.J...@sh... Diodorus the professor of logic died of shame because he could not at once solve a problem put to him in jest by Stilpo. --- Pliny the Elder |
From: Bob F. <bfr...@si...> - 2000-12-29 22:52:53
|
On Fri, 29 Dec 2000, F J Franklin wrote: > On Thu, 28 Dec 2000, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > > If libwmf (and associated libraries) where to be built using GNU > > libtool (and therefore be available as shared libraries), there would > > be substantial benefit to packages (like ImageMagick) that need to > > link against shared libraries in some cases. Is this a direction that > > libwmf is expecting to go? > > This is in fact very easy to implement (using automake) - with one caveat: > I have no experience with automake/libtool in non-Unix/Linux > environments... The benefit of doing everything statically is that the > Makefile can be nice, simple and generic. I have experience with Automake & Libtool under Windows supplemented with Cygwin. With a couple of extra Autoconf macros (and a bit of care) it is very easy to build static libraries (I have not tried DLLs). Use of Libtool does not imply that dynamic libraries must be built. The user can be given the option to build static, shared, or both. Bob ====================================== Bob Friesenhahn bfr...@si... http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen |
From: Martin V. <mar...@hu...> - 2001-01-10 01:21:04
|
On Thu, Dec 28, 2000 at 07:24:09PM -0600, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > From: Bob Friesenhahn <bfr...@si...> ... > Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 19:24:09 -0600 (CST) > > If libwmf (and associated libraries) where to be built using GNU > libtool (and therefore be available as shared libraries), there would > be substantial benefit to packages (like ImageMagick) that need to > link against shared libraries in some cases. Is this a direction that > libwmf is expecting to go? > > Bob > ====================================== > Bob Friesenhahn > bfr...@si... > http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen Bob, just in: A mail from Matej Vela who maintains the Debian libwmf, who has patched in libtool support. The patch (which is LARGE) is at http://www.debian.org/~vela/libwmf-libtool.patch and contains some other improvements too. Would you (or anyone else) want to take this for a test drive? It looks OK and I'm going to build and try it. If it works out (as I expect), I will commit. But the more that test it, the better. Regards Martin -- Martin Vermeer mar...@hu... Helsinki University of Technology Department of Surveying P.O. Box 1200, FIN-02015 HUT, Finland :wq |
From: Bob F. <bfr...@si...> - 2001-01-09 14:44:25
|
On Tue, 9 Jan 2001, Martin Vermeer wrote: > > just in: A mail from Matej Vela who maintains the Debian libwmf, > who has patched in libtool support. > > The patch (which is LARGE) is at > > http://www.debian.org/~vela/libwmf-libtool.patch > > and contains some other improvements too. > > Would you (or anyone else) want to take this for a test drive? > It looks OK and I'm going to build and try it. If it works out > (as I expect), I will commit. But the more that test it, > the better. I'd love to take it for a test drive. Let us know when you commit. Bob ====================================== Bob Friesenhahn bfr...@si... http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen |
From: F J F. <F.J...@sh...> - 2001-01-09 15:44:58
|
>> just in: A mail from Matej Vela who maintains the Debian libwmf, >> who has patched in libtool support. >> >> The patch (which is LARGE) is at >> >> http://www.debian.org/~vela/libwmf-libtool.patch >> >> Would you (or anyone else) want to take this for a test drive? >> It looks OK and I'm going to build and try it. If it works out >> (as I expect), I will commit. But the more that test it, >> the better. Works fine for me... (RH7 x86 / gcc-2.95.2) Regards, Frank Francis James Franklin F.J...@sh... Diodorus the professor of logic died of shame because he could not at once solve a problem put to him in jest by Stilpo. --- Pliny the Elder |
From: F J F. <F.J...@sh...> - 2001-01-09 16:08:16
|
>> just in: A mail from Matej Vela who maintains the Debian libwmf, >> who has patched in libtool support. >> >> The patch (which is LARGE) is at >> >> http://www.debian.org/~vela/libwmf-libtool.patch >> >> Would you (or anyone else) want to take this for a test drive? >> It looks OK and I'm going to build and try it. If it works out >> (as I expect), I will commit. But the more that test it, >> the better. FYI, works fine also for Linux PPC2000 (G3). Regards, Frank Francis James Franklin F.J...@sh... Diodorus the professor of logic died of shame because he could not at once solve a problem put to him in jest by Stilpo. --- Pliny the Elder |
From: Martin V. <mar...@hu...> - 2001-01-10 01:21:01
|
On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 08:44:00AM -0600, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 08:44:00 -0600 (CST) > From: Bob Friesenhahn <bfr...@si...> > X-Sender: bfr...@sc... > To: Martin Vermeer <mar...@hu...> > cc: wvw...@li... > Subject: Re: libwmf & GNU libtool > In-Reply-To: <200...@hu...> > > On Tue, 9 Jan 2001, Martin Vermeer wrote: > > > > just in: A mail from Matej Vela who maintains the Debian libwmf, > > who has patched in libtool support. > > > > The patch (which is LARGE) is at > > > > http://www.debian.org/~vela/libwmf-libtool.patch > > > > and contains some other improvements too. > > > > Would you (or anyone else) want to take this for a test drive? > > It looks OK and I'm going to build and try it. If it works out > > (as I expect), I will commit. But the more that test it, > > the better. > > I'd love to take it for a test drive. Let us know when you commit. > > Bob > ====================================== > Bob Friesenhahn > bfr...@si... > http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen > Just did so. It built perfectly for RH6.2, hope it does for others as well. (Haven't tried .so generation yet :-) CVS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- CVS: Enter Log. Lines beginning with `CVS:' are removed automatically CVS: CVS: Committing in . CVS: CVS: Modified Files: CVS: Makefile.in configure configure.in libdib/Makefile.in CVS: libsvg/Makefile.in libxfig/Makefile.in xgd-1.7.3/Makefile.in CVS: Added Files: CVS: aclocal.m4 config.guess config.sub ltconfig ltmain.sh CVS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Martin Vermeer mar...@hu... Helsinki University of Technology Department of Surveying P.O. Box 1200, FIN-02015 HUT, Finland :wq |