[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: where libltdl will be libtoolized
From: |
Ralf Wildenhues |
Subject: |
Re: where libltdl will be libtoolized |
Date: |
Sat, 20 Nov 2004 08:36:51 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.6+20040722i |
* Bob Friesenhahn wrote on Fri, Nov 19, 2004 at 09:35:19PM CET:
> On Fri, 19 Nov 2004, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
>
> >Current state of libtldl branch-2-0 is inconsistent:
> > libtoolize --ltdl=some/sub/dir
> >
> >will not work. The include paths in ltdl.h
> >| ltdl.h:#include <libltdl/lt_system.h>
> >| ltdl.h:#include <libltdl/lt_error.h>
> >| ltdl.h:#include <libltdl/lt_dlloader.h>
>
> Oh, dear!!!
So you haven't tried this out in your package yet, right? ;->
> The package I maintain puts libltdl files in the directory 'ltdl'
> rather than 'libltdl' and I expect to keep things that way (we still
> use CVS). It seems wrong for libltdl files to make assumptions
> regarding the directory they reside in.
How unfortunate.
We have to make a choice here, both possibilities have drawbacks:
If you keep a flat structure, people using an installed libltdl will
have to use -I$(includedir)/libltdl, plus we risk filename collision
(people don't expect arbitrary files beginning with `lt' to conflict
with libltdl).
Would a missing feature in the SCM you use be the only deterrent?
I mean, even in CVS, since the jump from libtool-1.5 to 2.0 a rather
large one (and ltdl-internal file reorganizations have been rather
large as well), I don't think one would lose too much information by
doing { cvs rm ltdl; cvs add libltdl }.
But hey, I'm not the one to make the call. I'd much rather like to
see branch-2-0 libltdl tested in a big package than not. :-)
> >and libltdl/Makefile.am's
> >| AM_CPPFLAGS = -I$(top_builddir) -I$(top_srcdir)
> >
> >will conflict in a package which uses libltdl.
>
> Yes, and it will not work if libltdl files are under "foo/libltdl".
Well, given my changes, "foo/libltdl" will work.
> It is a bad idea to assume where the libltdl files will be located.
In general: ACK.
> If the libltdl build needs to know, and it can't find out for itself,
> then the "user" (configure.ac) should be required to specify where the
> libltdl files reside.
Yes. Unfortunately, you also have to think about the case where libltdl
is installed.
> >We have to decide: Either the `libtoolize --ltdl' argument must
> >end in `libltdl', or we need to provide a flat directory structure.
> >(Note that this stems from the requirement to be able to either use
> >an installed libltdl or a package-internal one, with the repective
> >other
> >one absent).
>
> A flat directory structure (as we had before) sounds good to me. I do
> not plan to actually use libltdl's Makefile.am to build libltdl since
> that would require that the build is recursive and my package does not
> use a recursive build anymore. I do/did plan to see if libltdl's
> Makefile.am files can be adapted to serve either purpose (supporting
> non-recursive build via Automake includes) but I have not had time for
> that yet.
That'd be great.
> Libltdl's new complex build scheme has been worrying me.
Let's see if we can help that.
> >Doesn't the config.h header still pose problems? I think not but am
> >not so sure.
>
> I see code in argz.c that looks like it could be a problem. Maybe it
> wasn't updated the same way as other source files?
I fail to see this. Can you be more specific?
Regards,
Ralf
- where libltdl will be libtoolized, Ralf Wildenhues, 2004/11/19
- Re: where libltdl will be libtoolized, Bob Friesenhahn, 2004/11/19
- Re: where libltdl will be libtoolized,
Ralf Wildenhues <=
- Re: where libltdl will be libtoolized, Noah Misch, 2004/11/20
- Re: where libltdl will be libtoolized, Peter O'Gorman, 2004/11/20
- Re: where libltdl will be libtoolized, Ralf Wildenhues, 2004/11/20
- Re: where libltdl will be libtoolized, Bob Friesenhahn, 2004/11/20
- Re: where libltdl will be libtoolized, Peter O'Gorman, 2004/11/21
- Re: where libltdl will be libtoolized, Peter O'Gorman, 2004/11/21
- Re: where libltdl will be libtoolized, Peter O'Gorman, 2004/11/22
- Re: where libltdl will be libtoolized, Peter O'Gorman, 2004/11/22
- Re: where libltdl will be libtoolized, Bob Friesenhahn, 2004/11/22