more mail for the archive re: LTLIBOBJ problems

diff --git a/mail/LTLIBOBJ b/mail/LTLIBOBJ
index 09f735b8df5fb13754eb68507f0bbedb6a642e83..d149779534f37a49ee3e9cb27ba5aaaf4449c8d8 100644 (file)
--- a/mail/LTLIBOBJ
+++ b/mail/LTLIBOBJ
@@ -178,3 +178,44 @@ P-mail: Akim Demaille, 107 rue Bobillot, F-75013 Paris, France
 E-mail: demaille@inf.enst.fr
 V-mail: +33 1 45 81 78 81
 
+Subject: Re: lazy question
+Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 11:38:41 +0000
+From: "Gary V. Vaughan" <gvaughan@oranda.demon.co.uk>
+Organization: Aethos Communication Systems Ltd.
+To: tromey@cygnus.com
+CC: Akim Demaille <demaille@inf.enst.fr>,
+     Erez Zadok <ezk@cs.columbia.edu>, bug-libtool@gnu.org,
+     automake@gnu.org, autoconf@gnu.org
+
+Tom Tromey wrote:
+>
+> >> AC_LIBOBJS(blah)
+>
+> Gary> Agreed.  Also added to the archive.
+>
+> I'm suprised this isn't already there, since this subject has come up
+> many times before.  I'm sure I mentioned it to Gord more than once.
+>
+> Basically, I think the right solution is to add some new
+> functionality to autoconf that would let a user defer a piece of code
+> to be run just before AC_OUTPUT.  Then the libtool macro would
+> arrange to defer computation (and AC_SUBSTitution) of LTLIBOBJS and
+> LTALLOCA until that time.
+
+That sounds like a good, general, solution to me.  I'm adding this mail
+to the libtool mail archive too =)O|
+
+> This probably isn't even that hard to do; I just haven't done it.  I
+> wonder if it is on Ben's to-do list?  Or perhaps one of the libtool
+> hackers could submit the patch?
+
+We are teetering on the edge of a 1.3 release, which must be compatible
+with autoconf-2.13 and automake-1.4.  After that, I will try to submit a
+patch to Ben (stop me if you have this in your pending queue!).
+
+> In any case I don't think it is an automake problem per se.
+
+Agreed.
+
+Cheers,
+        Gary.