glibtool vs libtool

[Ryan Schmidt]

On Oct 23, 2009, at 08:29, Dominik Reichardt wrote:

> I have the port libtool (2.2.6a_0) installed. But that only gives me  
> glibtool/glibtoolize. Now I have encountered some programs that I  
> compile myself that need libtool/libtoolize. For those I have simply  
> symlinked glibtool/glibtoolize to libtool/ize.
> My questions are,
> - will I run into problems because of doing that?
>
> - why is it that some need libtool/ize and others are contend with  
> glibtool/ize?

The difference, of course, is that glibtool/glibtoolize is definitely  
the GNU version of libtool, while on Mac OS X libtool/libtoolize  
happen not to be, while on some other OSes like maybe Linux, libtool/ 
libtoolize are the GNU version. Some software written with Linux in  
mind might assume libtool/libtoolize are GNU, and have problems when  
they're not, like on Mac OS X.

When we encounter software like that in MacPorts and are writing ports  
for them, we often patch the configure script (or whatever is looking  
for libtool/libtoolize) and change it to look for glibtool/ 
glibtoolize. Or sometimes there are environment variables (e.g.  
LIBTOOL) that can be set. Other times we symlink glibtool into the  
worksrcpath as libtool.

If it's easier for you, you can create global symlinks libtool/ 
libtoolize linked to glibtool/glibtoolize if you promise to remove  
them after successfully compiling your software. I would not recommend  
leaving these links in place, because yet other software might detect  
it's running on Mac OS X and assume libtool/libtoolize are not GNU,  
and have problems if they are.