[PATCH]: mknetrel builds Guile #3: libtool

[Nicholas Wourms]

Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:

>Charles Wilson <cwilson@ece.gatech.edu> writes:
>
>
>>I think you made the right decision to go ahead with guile for now.
>>You can always release the next version/update of guile using mknetrel
>>if/when it will do what you need.
>>
>
>Ok.  It was just that I really wanted to strive to unite efforts,
>esp. after your compassionate post about packaging...
>
>
>>But don't give up on mknetrel -- it is GOOD that cgf is going slow
>>and careful.
>>
>
>Yes, of course it is.  At times I wish for our dictators to be a bit
>more benevolent, esp. after several long night hacking sessions.  It's
>easy to get a bit frustated upon a reject.
>    
>
>>Slow and steady wins the race.  You don't have reach the "ultimate
>>solution" with mknetrel right away.  Come back to it after lily-1.66,
>>and see how you can work with cgf's requirements.
>>
>
>Sure I will.  I'm just always a bit impatient.  I already resubmitted
>patch #2 (debug), and made some suggestions for changes in #5 (split).
>
Jan et al.,

Let keep the conversation about building a cross-compiler automatically 
going.  I think CGF is being rather stubborn about it  and doesn't see 
the potential benefits for the end user.  What probably should happen is 
the build cross environment script should be in a separate cvs tree and 
maintained apart from mknetrel.  When things get properly situated, then 
we could release a package that contains these scripts for people to 
download and use as they see fit.  Perhaps that could be build method #3.

Cheers,
Nicholas

Cheers,
Nicholas