[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: shared lib requires main ?!

From: Ralf Wildenhues
Subject: Re: shared lib requires main ?!
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 23:00:18 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)

Hello Gabriel,

please don't top-post, thanks.

* salsaman wrote on Mon, Nov 03, 2008 at 01:33:17PM CET:
> Following your advice and using the -module flag has indeed removed the
> leading "lib" from the real library as required.
> However, in the installation directory I now see (for example):
> foo.a foo.la foo.so
> First of all I only want the "foo.so" to be installed.

You can avoid the static archive with 'configure --disable-static', or
by adding --tag=disable-static to the link flags of foo.la.

There should be no need to skip foo.la; it's just a small text file that
helps libtool and hurts no one else.

> Second, I need to change the file extension in the install directory. In one
> directory, there should be no file extension (if possible), so "foo.so" is
> installed as just "foo". In a second directory (with a different
> Makefile.am) again only "bar.so" should be installed, however the file
> extension should be ".wo" so it ends up as "bar.wo"

Why? (serious question)

> Of course, this needs to be done in a portable way.

That cannot be portable.  Some systems cannot load modules if they don't
have some prescribed suffix.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]