Re: [PATCH, take 4][cygwin|mingw] Control where win32 DLLs get installed.

[Dave Korn]

Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * Dave Korn wrote on Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 06:26:11PM CEST:

>>>> +AT_CHECK([$LIBTOOL --mode=install $lt_INSTALL main$EXEEXT 
>>>> $curdir/bin/main$EXEEXT], [], [ignore], [ignore])
>>>> +AT_CHECK([$LIBTOOL --mode=execute $curdir/bin/main$EXEEXT], [], [stdout])
>>> This one should work without "$LIBTOOL --mode=execute" prepended, no?
>>   I have no idea.  I just copied the only other things in the testsuite that 
>> I
>> could identify as execution tests.  What does it actually *do*?
> 
> Run an installed program.  Installed programs ought to run without
> $LIBTOOL prepended.

  Did you mean "Run an *un*installed program" in the first part of that?  I'll
assume so.

>>> Out of curiosity, which of the systems of interest creates a
>>> libfoo.so.0 file?  
>>   Linux.
> 
> But you're not interested in testing GNU/Linux with $bindirneeded.
> Neither any of the other unices, which might not have a libfoo.so.0,
> but instead a libfoo.a (shared library! sic! on AIX) or a libfoo.0.so
> or libfoo.so.0.0 or whatnot.  So make life easy here, and drop all the
> .so thingy tests, you don't want them here.  Thanks.

  But I do want to make sure the file went to the right place, or at the very
least, that it did *not* go to the -bindir.  Hmm.  I can't easily use a
pattern match either as it might match more than one file and confuse the test
-f syntax.  Guess I'll have to `ls *foo*0*` them and test -z the output, that
should work.

>>> What if that is a symlink rather than a plain file
>>> ("test -f" only tests for plain files)?
>>   It is.  The test still passes.  Hmmmm..... better take a closer look at
>> that.  (And use the full so.0.0.0 name in the test).
> 
> Yeah, that's due to $bindirneeded.

  But that just makes it test -f for the same name in a different directory,
so it still ought to fail.  It turns out that, at least for bash on my Fedora
10 VM, test -f works for symlinks:

> address@hidden .libs]$ if test -f libfoo.so.0 ; then echo yes ; else echo no 
> ; fi
> yes
> address@hidden .libs]$ if test -f libfoo.so.0.0.0 ; then echo yes ; else echo 
> no ; fi
> yes
> address@hidden .libs]$ ls -la libfoo.so.0*
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 davek davek   15 2009-08-16 20:55 libfoo.so.0 -> libfoo.so.0.0.0
> -rwxrwxr-x 1 davek davek 5425 2009-08-16 20:55 libfoo.so.0.0.0
> address@hidden .libs]$ echo $BASH_VERSION 
> 3.2.39(1)-release
> address@hidden .libs]$ 

  Weird.  Anyway, I won't rely on it.

    cheers,
      DaveK