From spider@darkmere.wanfear.com Fri May 31 23:01:38 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: gnome-packaging-list@gnome.org Received: from Darkmere.psychozone (foo.stahl.nu [194.18.231.27]) by mail.gnome.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75455180E0 for ; Fri, 31 May 2002 23:01:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Darkmere.psychozone (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by Darkmere.psychozone (Postfix) with SMTP id BAB7C4A981 for ; Sat, 1 Jun 2002 05:00:59 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2002 05:00:57 +0200 From: Spider To: GPP Subject: to libtoolize or not to libtoolize... Message-Id: <20020601050057.0f544b3a.spider@darkmere.wanfear.com> Organization: Chaotic X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.7.6 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i686-pc-linux-gnu) X-Message: Why does this appear like this? X-Apparently-From: Jupiter X-A_Mail_Client_Is_Not_A_Web_Browser:

12:00

X-Complaints-To: /dev/null Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=.7HSdM021y6N/LR" Sender: gnome-packaging-list-admin@gnome.org Errors-To: gnome-packaging-list-admin@gnome.org X-BeenThere: gnome-packaging-list@gnome.org X-Loop: gnome-packaging-list@gnome.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Mailing list for the GNOME packaging project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: --=.7HSdM021y6N/LR Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ..thats a question I'm pondering right now... What is the best praxis here? is it necessary, suggested, frowned upon or...... further input would be greatly appreciated. //Spider -- begin .signature This is a .signature virus! Please copy me into your .signature! See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information. end --=.7HSdM021y6N/LR Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE8+DjrRk177ZitPh8RAg20AJ9i842iC4UGVq8ylFzIuWgsF84HxwCfZaza XiC2w8RVbU5MNi+Tm57i0rI= =xvPx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=.7HSdM021y6N/LR-- From gleblanc@linuxweasel.com Sat Jun 1 01:27:15 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: gnome-packaging-list@gnome.org Received: from mail.linuxweasel.com (216-99-218-48.dsl.aracnet.com [216.99.218.48]) by mail.gnome.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1AE0E180DD for ; Sat, 1 Jun 2002 01:27:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 8349 invoked by alias); 1 Jun 2002 04:56:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.1.10?) (192.168.1.10) by 192.168.1.50 with SMTP; 1 Jun 2002 04:56:22 -0000 Subject: Re: to libtoolize or not to libtoolize... From: Gregory Leblanc To: GPP In-Reply-To: <20020601050057.0f544b3a.spider@darkmere.wanfear.com> References: <20020601050057.0f544b3a.spider@darkmere.wanfear.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Organization: X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.1.0.99 (Preview Release) Date: 31 May 2002 22:24:33 -0700 Message-Id: <1022909084.1039.4.camel@peecee> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: gnome-packaging-list-admin@gnome.org Errors-To: gnome-packaging-list-admin@gnome.org X-BeenThere: gnome-packaging-list@gnome.org X-Loop: gnome-packaging-list@gnome.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Mailing list for the GNOME packaging project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: On Fri, 2002-05-31 at 20:00, Spider wrote: > ..thats a question I'm pondering right now... > What is the best praxis here? is it necessary, suggested, frowned upon > or...... > further input would be greatly appreciated. Here's a link to what jbj has to say about why libtoolize is in %configure (jbj is the rpm maintainer). http://www.redhat.com/mailing-lists/rpm-list/msg07002.html Greg -- Portland, Oregon, USA. Please don't copy me on replies to the list. From spider@darkmere.wanfear.com Fri May 31 23:01:38 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: gnome-packaging-list@gnome.org Received: from Darkmere.psychozone (foo.stahl.nu [194.18.231.27]) by mail.gnome.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75455180E0 for ; Fri, 31 May 2002 23:01:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Darkmere.psychozone (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by Darkmere.psychozone (Postfix) with SMTP id BAB7C4A981 for ; Sat, 1 Jun 2002 05:00:59 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2002 05:00:57 +0200 From: Spider To: GPP Subject: to libtoolize or not to libtoolize... Message-Id: <20020601050057.0f544b3a.spider@darkmere.wanfear.com> Organization: Chaotic X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.7.6 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i686-pc-linux-gnu) X-Message: Why does this appear like this? X-Apparently-From: Jupiter X-A_Mail_Client_Is_Not_A_Web_Browser:

12:00

X-Complaints-To: /dev/null Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=.7HSdM021y6N/LR" Sender: gnome-packaging-list-admin@gnome.org Errors-To: gnome-packaging-list-admin@gnome.org X-BeenThere: gnome-packaging-list@gnome.org X-Loop: gnome-packaging-list@gnome.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Mailing list for the GNOME packaging project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: --=.7HSdM021y6N/LR Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ..thats a question I'm pondering right now... What is the best praxis here? is it necessary, suggested, frowned upon or...... further input would be greatly appreciated. //Spider -- begin .signature This is a .signature virus! Please copy me into your .signature! See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information. end --=.7HSdM021y6N/LR Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE8+DjrRk177ZitPh8RAg20AJ9i842iC4UGVq8ylFzIuWgsF84HxwCfZaza XiC2w8RVbU5MNi+Tm57i0rI= =xvPx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=.7HSdM021y6N/LR-- From gleblanc@linuxweasel.com Sat Jun 1 01:27:15 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: gnome-packaging-list@gnome.org Received: from mail.linuxweasel.com (216-99-218-48.dsl.aracnet.com [216.99.218.48]) by mail.gnome.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1AE0E180DD for ; Sat, 1 Jun 2002 01:27:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 8349 invoked by alias); 1 Jun 2002 04:56:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.1.10?) (192.168.1.10) by 192.168.1.50 with SMTP; 1 Jun 2002 04:56:22 -0000 Subject: Re: to libtoolize or not to libtoolize... From: Gregory Leblanc To: GPP In-Reply-To: <20020601050057.0f544b3a.spider@darkmere.wanfear.com> References: <20020601050057.0f544b3a.spider@darkmere.wanfear.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Organization: X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.1.0.99 (Preview Release) Date: 31 May 2002 22:24:33 -0700 Message-Id: <1022909084.1039.4.camel@peecee> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: gnome-packaging-list-admin@gnome.org Errors-To: gnome-packaging-list-admin@gnome.org X-BeenThere: gnome-packaging-list@gnome.org X-Loop: gnome-packaging-list@gnome.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Mailing list for the GNOME packaging project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: On Fri, 2002-05-31 at 20:00, Spider wrote: > ..thats a question I'm pondering right now... > What is the best praxis here? is it necessary, suggested, frowned upon > or...... > further input would be greatly appreciated. Here's a link to what jbj has to say about why libtoolize is in %configure (jbj is the rpm maintainer). http://www.redhat.com/mailing-lists/rpm-list/msg07002.html Greg -- Portland, Oregon, USA. Please don't copy me on replies to the list. From spider@darkmere.wanfear.com Fri May 31 23:01:38 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: gnome-packaging-list@gnome.org Received: from Darkmere.psychozone (foo.stahl.nu [194.18.231.27]) by mail.gnome.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75455180E0 for ; Fri, 31 May 2002 23:01:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Darkmere.psychozone (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by Darkmere.psychozone (Postfix) with SMTP id BAB7C4A981 for ; Sat, 1 Jun 2002 05:00:59 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2002 05:00:57 +0200 From: Spider To: GPP Subject: to libtoolize or not to libtoolize... Message-Id: <20020601050057.0f544b3a.spider@darkmere.wanfear.com> Organization: Chaotic X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.7.6 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i686-pc-linux-gnu) X-Message: Why does this appear like this? X-Apparently-From: Jupiter X-A_Mail_Client_Is_Not_A_Web_Browser:

12:00

X-Complaints-To: /dev/null Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=.7HSdM021y6N/LR" Sender: gnome-packaging-list-admin@gnome.org Errors-To: gnome-packaging-list-admin@gnome.org X-BeenThere: gnome-packaging-list@gnome.org X-Loop: gnome-packaging-list@gnome.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Mailing list for the GNOME packaging project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: --=.7HSdM021y6N/LR Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ..thats a question I'm pondering right now... What is the best praxis here? is it necessary, suggested, frowned upon or...... further input would be greatly appreciated. //Spider -- begin .signature This is a .signature virus! Please copy me into your .signature! See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information. end --=.7HSdM021y6N/LR Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE8+DjrRk177ZitPh8RAg20AJ9i842iC4UGVq8ylFzIuWgsF84HxwCfZaza XiC2w8RVbU5MNi+Tm57i0rI= =xvPx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=.7HSdM021y6N/LR-- From gleblanc@linuxweasel.com Sat Jun 1 01:27:15 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: gnome-packaging-list@gnome.org Received: from mail.linuxweasel.com (216-99-218-48.dsl.aracnet.com [216.99.218.48]) by mail.gnome.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1AE0E180DD for ; Sat, 1 Jun 2002 01:27:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 8349 invoked by alias); 1 Jun 2002 04:56:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.1.10?) (192.168.1.10) by 192.168.1.50 with SMTP; 1 Jun 2002 04:56:22 -0000 Subject: Re: to libtoolize or not to libtoolize... From: Gregory Leblanc To: GPP In-Reply-To: <20020601050057.0f544b3a.spider@darkmere.wanfear.com> References: <20020601050057.0f544b3a.spider@darkmere.wanfear.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Organization: X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.1.0.99 (Preview Release) Date: 31 May 2002 22:24:33 -0700 Message-Id: <1022909084.1039.4.camel@peecee> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: gnome-packaging-list-admin@gnome.org Errors-To: gnome-packaging-list-admin@gnome.org X-BeenThere: gnome-packaging-list@gnome.org X-Loop: gnome-packaging-list@gnome.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Mailing list for the GNOME packaging project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: On Fri, 2002-05-31 at 20:00, Spider wrote: > ..thats a question I'm pondering right now... > What is the best praxis here? is it necessary, suggested, frowned upon > or...... > further input would be greatly appreciated. Here's a link to what jbj has to say about why libtoolize is in %configure (jbj is the rpm maintainer). http://www.redhat.com/mailing-lists/rpm-list/msg07002.html Greg -- Portland, Oregon, USA. Please don't copy me on replies to the list. From spider@darkmere.wanfear.com Fri May 31 23:01:38 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: gnome-packaging-list@gnome.org Received: from Darkmere.psychozone (foo.stahl.nu [194.18.231.27]) by mail.gnome.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75455180E0 for ; Fri, 31 May 2002 23:01:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Darkmere.psychozone (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by Darkmere.psychozone (Postfix) with SMTP id BAB7C4A981 for ; Sat, 1 Jun 2002 05:00:59 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2002 05:00:57 +0200 From: Spider To: GPP Subject: to libtoolize or not to libtoolize... Message-Id: <20020601050057.0f544b3a.spider@darkmere.wanfear.com> Organization: Chaotic X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.7.6 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i686-pc-linux-gnu) X-Message: Why does this appear like this? X-Apparently-From: Jupiter X-A_Mail_Client_Is_Not_A_Web_Browser:

12:00

X-Complaints-To: /dev/null Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=.7HSdM021y6N/LR" Sender: gnome-packaging-list-admin@gnome.org Errors-To: gnome-packaging-list-admin@gnome.org X-BeenThere: gnome-packaging-list@gnome.org X-Loop: gnome-packaging-list@gnome.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Mailing list for the GNOME packaging project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: --=.7HSdM021y6N/LR Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ..thats a question I'm pondering right now... What is the best praxis here? is it necessary, suggested, frowned upon or...... further input would be greatly appreciated. //Spider -- begin .signature This is a .signature virus! Please copy me into your .signature! See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information. end --=.7HSdM021y6N/LR Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE8+DjrRk177ZitPh8RAg20AJ9i842iC4UGVq8ylFzIuWgsF84HxwCfZaza XiC2w8RVbU5MNi+Tm57i0rI= =xvPx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=.7HSdM021y6N/LR-- From gleblanc@linuxweasel.com Sat Jun 1 01:27:15 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: gnome-packaging-list@gnome.org Received: from mail.linuxweasel.com (216-99-218-48.dsl.aracnet.com [216.99.218.48]) by mail.gnome.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1AE0E180DD for ; Sat, 1 Jun 2002 01:27:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 8349 invoked by alias); 1 Jun 2002 04:56:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.1.10?) (192.168.1.10) by 192.168.1.50 with SMTP; 1 Jun 2002 04:56:22 -0000 Subject: Re: to libtoolize or not to libtoolize... From: Gregory Leblanc To: GPP In-Reply-To: <20020601050057.0f544b3a.spider@darkmere.wanfear.com> References: <20020601050057.0f544b3a.spider@darkmere.wanfear.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Organization: X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.1.0.99 (Preview Release) Date: 31 May 2002 22:24:33 -0700 Message-Id: <1022909084.1039.4.camel@peecee> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: gnome-packaging-list-admin@gnome.org Errors-To: gnome-packaging-list-admin@gnome.org X-BeenThere: gnome-packaging-list@gnome.org X-Loop: gnome-packaging-list@gnome.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Mailing list for the GNOME packaging project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: On Fri, 2002-05-31 at 20:00, Spider wrote: > ..thats a question I'm pondering right now... > What is the best praxis here? is it necessary, suggested, frowned upon > or...... > further input would be greatly appreciated. Here's a link to what jbj has to say about why libtoolize is in %configure (jbj is the rpm maintainer). http://www.redhat.com/mailing-lists/rpm-list/msg07002.html Greg -- Portland, Oregon, USA. Please don't copy me on replies to the list.