Re: Actual libtool support routines

Adriaan de Groot wrote:

> Find attached compile and install actions for libtool libraries. I wonder 
> whether they should be merged into default.aap or left standalone - after 
> all, not everyone is going to use libtool thingies, and it might expand to 
> quite some body of code in the end.

The default.aap recipe is indeed growing bigger all the time.  This
slows down startup (although it might not be very noticable yet).

I'm not sure if libtool support really should be optional, but let's use
it as a case.  Suppose libtool support turns into a large pile of
actions and other stuff, so that we don't want it in default.aap.  Then
a user would have to specify he wants to use libtool support.

The simplest method would be to require something like ":import libtool".
We can make a collection of these optional modules.

Could this mechanism be automated?  Thus as soon as something related to
libtool is used, a search for the libtool module is done and it's
loaded.  This would require making a list of the actions and routes that
the module provides, so that Aap knows which module to load.

Does this sound too complicated?

-- 
"The amigos also appear to be guilty of not citing the work of others who had
gone before them.  Even worse, they have a chapter about modeling time and
space without making a single reference to Star Trek!"
			(Scott Ambler, reviewing the UML User Guide)

 /// Bram Moolenaar -- [email protected] -- http://www.Moolenaar.net   \\\
///          Creator of Vim - Vi IMproved -- http://www.Vim.org          \\\
\\\              Project leader for A-A-P -- http://www.A-A-P.org        ///
 \\\  Help AIDS victims, buy here: http://ICCF-Holland.org/click1.html  ///


-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf