main TODO file ?
ralf.habacker at freenet.de
Mon Oct 17 10:37:37 CEST 2005
Am Montag, 17. Oktober 2005 09:30 schrieb Stephan Kulow:
> Am Sonntag, 16. Oktober 2005 23:42 schrieb tnagyemail-ml at yahoo.fr:
> > > Personally I think it's really too early for that.
> > Agreed, it is a bit early.
> > Someone was talking about a libtool replacement on
> > irc, does everybody feel such a thing is necessary by
> > the way ?
> The main feature lacking from libtool is are the dependent libs. So far you
> really need to fill in a lot of dependencies in the libs section. And it
> doesn't really help too much if you have to define deps in bksys/ - that
> is only taking informations elsewhere - where it does not belong.
> So I'm not talking about a full libtool replacement, but libtool like
> functionality. And having the .la files around proved useful before, so I
> guess we can use that format too.
> The problem is, that this isn't really easy getting together with the
> platform independent linker stuff that is already in scons/bksys. And I
> can't motivate myself at the moment to try harder as the weather is so nice
> on weekends ;)
I don't think that this a real problem, because la files belongs to a binary
object like shared or static libraries which are platform and compiler
related. The only requirement is a function which interpret the compiler
specific dependency lines and adds the result to the target dependencies.
BTW: On Kde on cygwin I had more the problem, that the ltdl stuff results in a
noticable delay while loading libraries and I thought about something like a
cache for that.
> But as we speak about TODO: my main concern aren't the SCons files, but the
> configure part. That's what caused most problems in the past, so we should
> get _that_ one better and not worse (which it is now in quite some
More information about the Kde-buildsystem