autoconf
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: cross-compiling question: static libraries and binaries to different


From: Dan Kegel
Subject: Re: cross-compiling question: static libraries and binaries to different places?
Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002 12:54:23 -0800

Guido Draheim wrote:
> ... we do not
> need any automake support when a staging area (a
> chroot-like target host simulation-filetree) is
> being used, it would just be a different DESTDIR,
> and it would also provide the support for any
> other build support file, like includeheaders or
> some other modules, one could even use a binary
> package for the target host, and install under
> a reloc-prefix.
> 
> That gives a good future compatibility as we do not
> need to know anymore which of the files need a
> copy on the build host (if in doubt, install them
> all), and there is just one problem left - where
> is the staging area, and how is the fhs being
> used in there. That is sure no easy answer. The
> print-search-dirs scheme migh help, but I didn't
> come to any conclusive so far.

IMHO we tell the compiler and linker about the
staging area through -I and -L arguments.  Libtool
supports those just fine, I think; we just have to
make sure that they are available to libtool
(and here's where automake might need to get involved a bit).

By the way, this doesn't solve my original concern,
which was 'When building somebody else's fully 
autoconf/automake/libtoolized package,
how do I avoid installing static libraries
on my embedded system?'  But I suppose I can just
globally remove all .a files in the image I copy
from the staging area...

- Dan



reply via email to

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