Re: why the libtool runtime requirement?

Meredydd,

	I spoke with the team and we are looking at either ayttm and EB-lite 
now.  I havent done much static compiling, actually none but I am sure I 
will figure it out. :)

Thanks for yor help Philip and Meredydd :)

Cheers

Mike

Meredydd wrote:
> Not quite. You'd still need to modify the symbol names - if you dlread() 
> a symbol called "mysym", you get the symbol "mysym". If you lt_dlread() 
> a symbol called "mysym", you get "pluginname_LTX_mysym" if I recall. 
> But otherwise, it's fairly straightforward.
> 
> Really, really, though, Michael - I'd advise jumping from Everybuddy. If 
> you want the program with the same look and feel (it's a continuation 
> of the original codebase), go check out ayttm (.sf.net). And that's not 
> bias either - I'm EB-lite maintainer :^)
> 
> If you *do* want to look at eb-lite, you may be happy to hear that if 
> you do a static compile with the ABS (alternative build system), 
> there's no libtool dependency. I think you can avoid it with the 
> autotools build too, but I'm not sure - Philip?
> 
> Meredydd
> 
> On Tuesday 08 July 2003 08:30, Philip S Tellis wrote:
> 
>>On Tue, 8 Jul 2003, Michael Honeyfield wrote:
>>
>>>what the team want to do now. Just out of interest, if *we* wanted
>>>to remove the libtool require and code the changes needed, are we
>>>in for
>>
>>well, I think you'd just have to replace calls to lt_dl* with the dl*
>>functions from dlfcn.h  Should work.
>>
>>Philip
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Everybuddy mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.spine.cx/listinfo/everybuddy
> 

-- 
Ok, there's no way to do this gracefully, so I won't even try. I'm going 
to just hunker down for some really impressive extended flaming, and my 
asbestos underwear is firmly in place, and extremely  uncomfortable.
						
-- Linus Trovalds