Re: pkg/35307 (libtool vs compiler.mk)

[Dan McMahill <dmcmahill%NetBSD.org@localhost>]

The following reply was made to PR pkg/35307; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Dan McMahill <dmcmahill%NetBSD.org@localhost>
To: gnats-bugs%NetBSD.org@localhost
Cc: pkg-manager%netbsd.org@localhost, gnats-admin%netbsd.org@localhost, 
 pkgsrc-bugs%netbsd.org@localhost
Subject: Re: pkg/35307 (libtool vs compiler.mk)
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2010 01:39:26 -0500

 Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
 > The following reply was made to PR pkg/35307; it has been noted by GNATS.
 > 
 > From: Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg%britannica.bec.de@localhost>
 > To: gnats-bugs%NetBSD.org@localhost
 > Cc: 
 > Subject: Re: pkg/35307 (libtool vs compiler.mk)
 > Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2010 06:53:07 +0100
 > 
 >  On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 05:50:03AM +0000, Dan McMahill wrote:
 >  >  libtool creates tags which are stored in ${prefix}/bin/libtool and they 
 >  >  are based on the compiler characteristics in the compiler used to build 
 >  >  libtool.  This means if you ever try to switch from say f2c-f77 for your 
 >  >  fortran compiler to gfortran, you'll have a bad libtool and you end up 
 >  >  having to rebuild everything.
 >  
 >  Everything is a bit too much. Rebuildling libtool-base and the fortran
 >  dependencies should certainly be enough.
 
 everything is maybe a bit much, but most of the things written in 
 fortran are lower level libs.  So you end up rebuilding low level 
 packages and then the ones which depended upon those as well.