Two points I'd like to bring up for discussion:

- libtool is becoming more and more used around the tree as I scan for pkgs
which build shared libraries.  It would be useful to put this into
bsd.pkg.mk as USE_LIBTOOL, with that transformed into:

.if defined(USE_LIBTOOL)
LIBTOOL?=	${LOCALBASE}/bin/libtool
BUILD_DEPENDS+=	${LIBTOOL}:../../devel/libtool
CONFIGURE_ENV+=	LIBTOOL=${LIBTOOL}
MAKE_ENV+=	LIBTOOL=${LIBTOOL}
.endif

(note LOCALBASE instead of PREFIX - that one bit me on a couple X11 pkgs).
Without objection, I'll add this to bsd.pkg.mk and lint out the pkg
Makefiles to use it uniformly.

- mycroft asked why libtool was modified not to install the .la files.
There was an apparent problem with the KDE pkgs (KDE seems to check for the
presence of .la files instead of the standard Autoconf "cc -o conftest
conftest.c -llibname), and so libtool was modified to add a switch
--install-la to restore the default behavior.

I removed the installation of the .la files by default because they are
completely unnecessary on NetBSD (where relinking of binaries to get the
run-path right is not required as on AIX).  The files were just unused
clutter, in my opinion, so it seemed easiest to remove the .la files
altogether.

What I'm looking for is possible opinions to the contrary - and why.  If
there's resounding support to revert to the default libtool behavior of
installing .la files, I'll be happy to change it back.

-- 
-- Todd Vierling (Personal tv@pobox.com; Bus. todd_vierling@xn.xerox.com)