libtool-patches
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: SCO/bugfix patch 7 of 10: Improve SCO platform support


From: Ralf Wildenhues
Subject: Re: SCO/bugfix patch 7 of 10: Improve SCO platform support
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 23:00:18 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.9i

Hi Kean,

* Kean Johnston wrote on Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 10:35:09PM CET:
> >The way I understand your intentions, it should suffice if you can
> >decide at configure time about the absoluteness of the paths (rather
> >than at link time).  So you could do this instead:
> >
> >  if test -z "$SCOABSPATH"; then

> >which would be at least a lot more readable.
> Sure, I can do that, I'm open for compromise :) The only reason
> I did it the way it currently stands is it allows me to do the
> following:
> 
>   ./configure
>   make install
>   make clean
>   SCOABSPATH=1 make install DESTDIR=/whatever

I know.  You could even `find . -name \*.la | xargs rm' to avoid the
`make clean'.

> with no intervening re-running of configure in between. In fact
> the SCOABSPATH thing as it currently stands used to look a great
> deal neater. Perhaps this would be more acceptable (I suspect it
> might), so that I can preserve the above behaviour (line split
> by mailer, not in script):
> 
>   archive_cmds='$CC -shared
>     ${wl},-h${SCOABSPATH:+${install_libdir}/}$soname -o $lib
>     $libobjs $deplibs $compiler_flags'
> 
> It has the exact same effect, but looks a *great* deal cleaner.
> In fact, before I submitted the patch thats how it looked. I
> changed it to the current mechanism becuase I thought it made
> it more obvious what was happening. But I can see your point
> about it being ugly as sin.

Well, this is better than your previous version.  Still, innocent users
happening to compile a package see the SCOABSPATH, and this is what bugs
me (yes, I know #users <= 2).

> If even that is too ugly for you, then I guess I can live with
> the pain of having to re-run configure to enable the absolute
> path stuff, but I'm really hoping not :)

Since this is really for a dying libtool branch, what the heck, repost
as above.  At least it would match your usage pattern with
-absolute-soname, too.

> >about moving the hack forward if that doesn't work out).  At the first
> >occurrence of SCOABSPATH, please add a comment that this thingy will not
> >be supported, and that it breaks testing of uninstalled libraries.
> I can certainly do that. Is there a suitable place in the doc
> for platform specific quirks that I can document it more
> eloquently and obviously too?

I had hoped doc/notes.texi (CVS HEAD) to be for platform specific
questions, but: I definitely don't want to see it in there.  I don't
want it prominently documented; just people that find it anyway should
also be able to find the comment "do not rely on this".

Cheers,
Ralf




reply via email to

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