Re: libguile-ltdl

[Rob Browning]

Han-Wen Nienhuys <address@hidden> writes:

> address@hidden writes:
>> I'd like to see what Marius thinks, but we might be able to remove
>> libguile-ltdl in 1.7 now.  I'd be more hesitant to do so in 1.6,
>> unless it was only for cygwin.  Removing a library isn't a backward
>> compatible change.
>
> Why not make it a configuration option? Then we don't throw away the
> work of infrastructure for making the forked libtool.

I'm OK with dumping libguile-ltdl altogether in 1.7, if we don't think
we're going to pursue enhancements anytime soon.  We can always add it
back later, and a --disable-libguile-ltdl option sounds like it might
be a reasonable way to handle the problem in 1.6 if the fix for
libguile-ldtl for cygwin is too hard.

Although if it's just cygwin, and if libguile-ltdl has *never* worked
there, then another alternative might be to just disable it when
cygwin is detected.

Ideally though, I'd still much rather just have a fix for
libguile-ltdl on cygwin if that were possible, and not too difficult.

-- 
Rob Browning
rlb @defaultvalue.org and @debian.org; previously @cs.utexas.edu
GPG starting 2002-11-03 = 14DD 432F AE39 534D B592  F9A0 25C8 D377 8C7E 73A4