![]() ![]() I'm only comparing the status quo against my most recent patch. The potential downside to the patch is that some other stray libtool artifacts may be discovered on an obscure platform, and the glob will have to be updated to remove them. ![]() ![]() Since those artifacts are harmless in the meantime (and may never materialize in the first place), I don't see this as a huge problem, but I'm biased. I think libtool shouldn't be used at all for these *.oct libraries the extra libtool pieces just get in the way. Unless you're targeting systems from the early 90s, $(CC) works fine and gives you only the file you want in the place you expect. > The following naming conventions seem to be used at least by autotools and cmake for "mingw*" targets Losing the automake magic for those libs would hurt a bit, but the corresponding rule can basically be copy & pasted out of the generated Makefile.in. ![]() > Afaict from a Google search, the naming conventions are the following for a msvc target (using cmake?). But the worst thing that can possibly happen is that some unused files get installed until the next release when the rule can be updated. IMO this is a lesser evil and a bargain for removing the. la file parsing from the install-oct target. But I'm not sure if it is the right approach when it comes to portability. The following naming conventions seem to be used at least by autotools and cmake for "mingw*" targets for a library "foo" in their current versions (other naming conventions might be used by other build tools or other Windows targets like e.g. "msvc"):Īll of those are sometimes versioned as e.g. Those naming conventions might be implementation details though. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |