Subject: Re: Alternative PLIST expansion of libtool archives
To: Johnny C. Lam <jlam@NetBSD.org>
From: Todd Vierling <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 09/08/2004 21:14:06
On Wed, 8 Sep 2004, Johnny C. Lam wrote:
> (1) It uses the existing _PLIST_AWK_SCRIPT framework.
> This is either good or bad depending on how one feels about the
> _PLIST_AWK_SCRIPT framework :)
The reasons I preferred an external script were that it can be run trivially
by hand for debugging or external calls (very handy for external scripts),
as well as being easier to maintain if and when libtool evolves in an
incompatible way (different pkgsrc OS port, new libtool version, etc.).
That said, the only thing that made the script approach problematic, to me,
was the fact that it did need the .la files in the Makefile; I didn't think
about doing an awk callout as you did in the submitted patch (which could
also work with the script version, right?).
BTW, one thing found on IRIX is that the .la files list the .so (no version)
twice in the output, which needs to be made unique so as not to list the
PLIST entry twice. I have been busy with a work deadline for this week and
didn't get around to fixing that yet....
> (2) It's not required that the libtool archives be explicitly
> listed in LIBTOOL_LA_FILES in the package Makefiles.
This is fine with me. I'd be happy for that to be automatic.
> instead of duplicating the information in two separate places.
Clarification: The transform-la script did indeed output the PLIST entry
for the .la file too, so it wasn't in the PLIST template for my devel/rx
testbed. However, if it were called out from _PLIST_AWK_SCRIPT as I
proposed above, the .la entry could be moved from the Makefile to the PLIST
-- Todd Vierling <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>