[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: TODO
From: |
Noah Misch |
Subject: |
Re: TODO |
Date: |
Wed, 10 Nov 2004 12:43:27 -0800 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.6i |
On Wed, Nov 10, 2004 at 08:52:00PM +0100, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * Bob Friesenhahn wrote on Wed, Nov 10, 2004 at 08:31:15PM CET:
> > On Wed, 10 Nov 2004, Noah Misch wrote:
> > >If Automake descends into SUBDIRS to install in the same order it
> > >does to build and uses `make' dependencies to ensure proper ordering
> > >within each SUBDIR, then the products should relink/install in the
> > >correct order. Right?
> >
> > That would be my assumption as well. The current library install
> > mechanism does not ensure that libraries are installed in the same
> > order that they are built.
>
> This statement seems to me to imply that Automake should be able to do
> the job on its own, without any additional information from libtool,
> given the library dependencies are stated correctly in the
> Makefile.am's.
I think so. Every working build order is a correct installation order. If the
build succeeds, Automake knows one working build order. It therefore knows one
workable installation order.
> So, can the user not enforce inter-Makefile dependencies through the use
> of `libfoo_la_DEPENDENCIES = sub/libbar.la' ?
That would not improve installation order correctness at this time.
> > A problem exists in that if a library is already installed on
> > the system, it may be used by accident, either at build time, or at
> > install time. This masks serious build/install ordering issues.
>
> Yes.
Automake could unmask these issues by unlinking every file it is about to
install before installing them. Unfortunately, this would keep the user from
meaningfully specifying `install' options to, for example, make backup copies.
As you say, using distcheck is a robust way to flush out these issues.
> > Package developers usually already have the library installed on the
> > system so they may not see the failure in their environment, but
> > end-users do. 'make distcheck' helps significantly with discovering
> > these problems.
>
> BTW, this topic shouldn't have any extra issues in the cases of staged
> installs (checked by `make distcheck') and cross-compilation, right?
I cannot think of any.
- Re: TODO, (continued)
- Re: TODO, Alexandre Duret-Lutz, 2004/11/09
- Re: TODO, Noah Misch, 2004/11/10
- Re: TODO, Bob Friesenhahn, 2004/11/10
- Re: TODO, Noah Misch, 2004/11/10
- Re: TODO, Bob Friesenhahn, 2004/11/10
- Re: TODO, Ralf Wildenhues, 2004/11/10
- Re: TODO,
Noah Misch <=
- Re: TODO, Bob Friesenhahn, 2004/11/10
- Re: TODO, Alexandre Duret-Lutz, 2004/11/10
- Re: TODO, Noah Misch, 2004/11/11
Re: TODO, Ralf Wildenhues, 2004/11/15