[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: LT_* equivalent to AC_CHECK_LIB?
From: |
Ralf Wildenhues |
Subject: |
Re: LT_* equivalent to AC_CHECK_LIB? |
Date: |
Mon, 3 Jul 2006 23:34:02 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.11+cvs20060403 |
* Tim Mooney wrote on Mon, Jul 03, 2006 at 11:17:03PM CEST:
> So to address this, libtool would need to
>
> - know how the platform behaves regarding shared library dependencies
> - in the case of static libraries, continue doing what it's already doing
> - for shared libraries on platforms where the linker follows library
> dependencies
> - when creating a shared library, make sure that it's dependent
> libraries are recorded (however that's done for a particular
> platform, probably just linking) by the library when it's created.
> - when linking against a shared library of this type, detect which
> libraries are recorded as dependant for the shared library and
> leave those out of the list of dependency_libs for the shared
> library.
>
> Is that about it?
No. It's much more complicated.
If you allow the concept of indirect dependencies,
- you must make sure that uninstalled libraries which happen to be
indirect dependencies, are properly linked against (instead of an
earlier installed version) when executing uninstalled programs,
- that upon installation, libraries and programs properly do not contain
any build-tree paths any more,
- match that with an aim to get -fast-install and -no-fast-install
working properly, and with relink-upon-execution and relink-upon-
installation,
- the many different semantics for hardcoding make this even "more
interesting" ... for example, one we would need the information
whether the linker and/or the runtime loader respect runpaths (and
in which priority) for indirect dependencies, and whether with
priority over the shlibpath variable. This is trickier than you
think: some GNU/Linux distributions even install GNU binutils with a
different default...
Cheers,
Ralf
- Re: LT_* equivalent to AC_CHECK_LIB?, (continued)
- Re: LT_* equivalent to AC_CHECK_LIB?, Bob Friesenhahn, 2006/07/03
- Re: LT_* equivalent to AC_CHECK_LIB?, Albert Chin, 2006/07/03
- Re: LT_* equivalent to AC_CHECK_LIB?, Albert Chin, 2006/07/03
- Re: LT_* equivalent to AC_CHECK_LIB?, Bob Friesenhahn, 2006/07/03
- Re: LT_* equivalent to AC_CHECK_LIB?, Tim Mooney, 2006/07/03
- Re: LT_* equivalent to AC_CHECK_LIB?, Bob Friesenhahn, 2006/07/03
- Re: LT_* equivalent to AC_CHECK_LIB?, Russ Allbery, 2006/07/03
- Re: LT_* equivalent to AC_CHECK_LIB?, Ralf Wildenhues, 2006/07/03
- Re: LT_* equivalent to AC_CHECK_LIB?, Tim Mooney, 2006/07/03
- Re: LT_* equivalent to AC_CHECK_LIB?,
Ralf Wildenhues <=
- Re: LT_* equivalent to AC_CHECK_LIB?, Tim Mooney, 2006/07/03
- Re: LT_* equivalent to AC_CHECK_LIB?, Bob Friesenhahn, 2006/07/03
- Re: LT_* equivalent to AC_CHECK_LIB?, Ralf Wildenhues, 2006/07/03
- Re: LT_* equivalent to AC_CHECK_LIB?, Tim Mooney, 2006/07/03
- Re: LT_* equivalent to AC_CHECK_LIB?, Ralf Wildenhues, 2006/07/03
Re: LT_* equivalent to AC_CHECK_LIB?, Tim Mooney, 2006/07/03
Re: LT_* equivalent to AC_CHECK_LIB?, Albert Chin, 2006/07/03