Mon Sep 20 18:22:00 GMT 2010
On 9/20/2010 10:43 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
>> Ironically, the main reason cygport autoreconf's everything is to ensure
>> that libtoolized packages use cygwin's customized version of...libtool.
> Yes, it is rather ironic that building the cygwin package of libtool
> requires running autoreconf, in order to use cygwin's libtool to fix up
> the build of cygwin's libtool.
Well, I could always create a tarball on *my* machine using 'make dist',
such that (a) it would already have been bootstrapped with all the
latest cygwin goodies, and (b) its aclocal would already contain the
necessary info from autobuild.m4. Then the cygport(5) would be able to
skip the autoreconf (actually, ./bootstrap) step on any *rebuilder's*
machine...but I'd really rather not have to jump thru those hoops. And
it would mean that *I* would have to have an unofficial package on my
It's better all around to consider autobuild a build-time "requirement"
of libtool -- since although it is referred to as "optional" it really
is required unless somebody (like me) jumps through those hoops I mentioned.
> At any rate, +1 from me for packaging
> autobuild. There are several other GNU packages that use autobuild.m4
> (such as coreutils and m4), but they include it in the tarball rather
> than expecting it to be pre-installed the way libtool 2.4 appears to be
> doing things.
It's not actually clear how 2.4 will be packaged, yet -- although we
should find out within 24 hours.
I really had wanted to get another version of libtool out to the cygwin
community with the new lto support, for testing, BEFORE 2.4 was
released, but I just didn't have the time. I guess we'll find out if
the lto stuff works with cygwin-gcc-4.5.x after the libtool-2.4 release. :-(
More information about the Cygwin-apps