Re: [PATCH]: mknetrel builds Guile #3: libtool

[Christopher Faylor <cgf at redhat dot com>]

[had to take a little while to settle down before answering this one]

On Tue, Jul 09, 2002 at 06:31:20PM +0200, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
>Christopher Faylor <cgf@redhat.com> writes:
>
>> On Tue, Jul 09, 2002 at 02:14:16AM +0200, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
>>>
>>>   - fixes and preparations for building with libtool
>>>
>>
>> Sorry, but I don't like this one.  Does libtool *really* need to run
>> ld directly?  That seems ill advised to me.  It's usually better to
>> just run gcc.
>
>Ok.  So libtool is probably still broken.  I'm not going to fix
>libtool and cannot allow myself to spend too much extra time on this.
>(Actually, I've spent so much time on Guile and Cygwin the past week,
>that I had complaints from a Lily developer; we're gearing up for
>1.6). In the meantime, I must see Guile being packaged.

You supplied a patch labelled "- fixes and preparations for building
with libtool" and provided some mechanism for setting ld to something.
That was a little short in the explanation department.

Everything I've ever heard about says that you should avoid running ld
by itself.  I actually went to some effort to do this when building
cygwin.  However, maybe libtool is different.  I'm not familiar with
it and I'm definitely not familiar with you.  It's entirely possible
that you're missing something and so, yes, I will ask questions if
I think that is a possibility.

I think that Chuck's message indicated that libtool actually does
use ld directly.  As someone who has studied libtool, I'll take his
word for it.  Forgive me for not assuming that the LilyPond creator
was also a libtool expert.

So, I've added a patch to mknetrel which will derive LD from the build
compiler.  I think that is the best way to deal with this.

cgf