[Top][All Lists]

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

Problem with shared libraries on Solaris 8

From: Stan Guillory
Subject: Problem with shared libraries on Solaris 8
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2005 10:57:59 -0600

I have just upgraded to Autoconf 2.59, Automake 1.95, and Libtool
1.5.14. Now when I build shared libraries,
they don't have the .so extension in thier names. Anybody know why? It
may be a question for the libtool list,
but I thought I try both places.


>>> Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng <address@hidden> 3/1/2005 7:39:11 AM >>>
On Tue, 1 Mar 2005, Stepan Kasal wrote:

> Hi,
>  let me formulate a proposal.  I try to be as specific as possible.

Thank you, this is a help (I'm somewhat overloaded at the moemnt).
> ------------------------------
> Prints a message and saves it for later usage.
> Example: AC_MSG_NEED(foo, [grab the latest foo from])
> prints:
> Suggestion:
>  foo          grab the latest foo from
This encapsulates the ideas well,

> ------------------------------------------
> Prints a message and saves it for later usage.
> Example: AC_MSG_COND_NEED(--with-graphs, libxy,
>       [use the latest xy library from])
> prints:
> Suggestion (for --with-graphs):
>  libxy                use the latest xy library from 

and this incorporates requirements information well.

Maybe call it AC_MSG_OUTPUT to tie it to the other two?
> ---------
> If there were any call to AC_MSG_NEED or AC_MSG_COND_NEED, all the
> suggestions are printed, and then configure exits; it doesn't create
> config.status in this case.
> Example:
> Suggestions:
>  foo          grab the latest foo from
>  bar          grab the latest bar from 
> (for --with-graphs):
>  libxy                use the latest xy library from 
> Thats all.  I think implementing this proposal is a good step

Yes, that is what I was hoping for.
> The most difficult part is the documentation, of course.  I don't
> volunteer for it.  Hugh, could you please write a patch to
> which would document these macros, and, most importantly, encouradge
> their usage?

I'm not familiar with the layout of the CVS base, so can you tell me
how to get hold of the file I should be writing the patch against,
> I could then add some macros and patch autoconf's own
> A few comments:
> Comment #1:
> -----------
> I chose AC_MSG_NEED instead of a combination of AC_MSG_END and
> AS_SUGGEST_STRING.  I think the macro should be as simple as
> so that mor people use it.

I'm happy with either, as long as something happens.  Are you one of
the maintainers?  (I don't know "who's who" in autoconf, I admit!)
> Comment #2:
> -----------
> This proposal doesn't handle dependencies among the requirements.
> This is intentional; I think a maintainer should only specify the
> list of requirements.  Only sysadmins and distribution builders are
> allowed to think about a "dependency tree".

Also there is too much to consider when requesting that change. 
Furthermore, much can be achieved with the existing AS_IF macro, so
I'm happy to let that go for now.  Would it be sensible to allude to
this when I write the doc patch, or just leave dependency matters
out of the discussion?  The critical change here is that failure is
not immediate, and important messages appear at the end where they
are likely to be seen (not lost from the scroll buffer).

> In most cases, we can check for all requirements independently.
> In the rare case when it is impossible to perform a check for "bar"
> if "foo" wasn't found, we can use this pattern:
> # check for foo and set have_foo
> if test $have_foo = no; then
>  AC_MSG_NEED(foo, [grab foo from ...])
> fi
> have_bar=no
> if test $have_foo = yes; then
>  # check for bar
>  # and set have_bar appropriately
> fi
> if test $have_bar = no; then
>  AC_MSG_NEED(bar, [grab bar from ...])
> fi

Sounds reasonable, or one could use AS_IF.
> Hugh, are you willing to work on this proposal, and make a patch to
> autoconf.texi?

Yes, I'll try to put something together, but it will probably need
to be reviewed as I'm not familiar enough with the use and abuse of
> Stepan
         Thank you,

Autoconf mailing list

reply via email to

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