Re: missing info in the models tarballs.

al davis wrote:
> On Sunday 25 February 2007 07:59, Stuart Brorson wrote:
>>> 2. The libtool tarball is about 3 MB. about 3 times the size of
>>> the gnucap basic tarball. (core + enough plugins to be useful)
>>> It contains lots of stuff for lots of systems.
>> I gotta agree with the chorus of libtool advocates.  It will make your
>> life easier.   Also, what the big deal about a 3MB tarball if you
>> already require g++ to build Gnucap & it's plug-ins?
> 
> It creates a RUN TIME dependency for something that should 
> be determined pre-build, that can be determined without it,
> and doesn't completely solve the problem.

I think libtool is not really necessary. A simple platform-dependent 
wrapper script would do fine. There are not so many options required for 
  building plugins after all (few dependencies (?), no site-dependent 
configuration). What is necessary is compiler/linker invocation and this 
can be hardcoded or, as David proposed, dumped to the file at build-time 
configuration of gnucap itself.

Still, the most reliable option would be to ship gnucap with a model 
interpreter/vm or at least an embedded compiler. Sites without or with 
incomplete development tools are not that uncommon.

\R.