Re: Feature request: setting env vars for binary wrappers

[Bob Friesenhahn]

On Fri, 18 Apr 2008, Roumen Petrov wrote:
> Because I think that modules/application/packages/etc should do their best 
> work. I don't think that a particular package hast o support partially or to 
> implement very basic functionality. The est example is microsoft software 
> where application is feature reach but 99.9% of features are with partially 
> or basic functionality.
The difference between libtool and Microsoft software is that libtool 
is developed by volunteers and Microsoft software is developed by 
well-paid employees of a many billion-dollar company.  As a result, 
every feature in libtool is developed because someone wants it badly 
enough that they are willing to develop it themselves.
Libtool is not over-featured at this time.  As Ralf says, we are 
already passing environment variables to the wrapper so it is no big 
deal to pass more.  The only substantial change is for static builds 
which currently don't have a wrapper.
The static build is a more significant concern since static builds 
are often used for debugging purposes and if we hide the static binary 
in a subdirectory, it may be more difficult to debug.  We need to make 
sure that it is both possible to obtain the necessary run-time 
environment, and to run the debugger on the correct binary.  Proposals 
for the cleanest way to do that are appreciated.
Bob
======================================
Bob Friesenhahn
address@hidden, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/
GraphicsMagick Maintainer,    http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/