Re: bindir for libtool

[Ralf Wildenhues]

Hi Charles,

thanks for chiming in.

* Charles Wilson wrote on Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 11:52:19PM CEST:
> My preference going forward would be:
> 
>   1) assuming no further objections (and, I believe Dave has adequately
> address ALL objections /except/ Roumen's), merge Dave's patch forthwith.
> 
>   2) Begin a discussion about how to accommodate Roumen's concerns,
> which have not been addressed by Dave's changes, but without breaking
> Dave's (that is, gcc's) use of the -bindir option.

I agree.

> I'd suggest, perhaps, adding a *different* libtool option, e.g.
> -abs-bindir, that works semantically as Roumen desires. Then, later, gcc
> may choose to use either -bindir or -abs-bindir, whatever seems best to
> them. I'm probably overlooking something with this suggestion, but I'd
> prefer if, rather than extending this thread and delaying #1 above any
> longer, we postpone discussion of how what I've just said is all wrong
> until after #1, and we're into the discussion of #2.

We can think about -abs-bindir.  #1 is waiting to be committed to GNU
Libtool only for the finishing of DaveK's copyright papers; then I will
commit it (along with a couple of fixes, one of which has shown up in
GCC already and the other is in Libtool testsuite-only code).

Cheers,
Ralf