On 09/29/2011 07:15 AM, Clifford Yapp wrote:
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 8:52 PM, Michael Hertling mhertl...@online.dewrote:
What do you do on systems which have no idea of symbolic links, e.g.
previous Windows versions? Adding more platform-specific code to the
sources of the FIND_LIBRARY()
On 09/29/2011 09:22 AM, Hendrik Sattler wrote:
Zitat von Michael Wild them...@gmail.com:
Just a few of my thoughts on this:
Same for me.
- There are several ways to handle dead symlinks:
1. Don't check, let the linker complain (status quo)
2. Check whether the found library is a
On 09/29/2011 07:15 AM, Clifford Yapp wrote:
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 8:52 PM, Michael Hertling
mhertl...@online.de mailto:mhertl...@online.de wrote:
What do you do on systems which have no idea of symbolic links, e.g.
previous Windows versions? Adding more platform-specific code to the
On 09/29/2011 07:15 AM, Clifford Yapp wrote:
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 8:52 PM, Michael Hertling
mhertl...@online.de mailto:mhertl...@online.de wrote:
I guess the question revolves around the expectation of find_library
being different from find_file - as a user, my expectation would be
that
Zitat von Michael Wild them...@gmail.com:
Just a few of my thoughts on this:
Same for me.
- There are several ways to handle dead symlinks:
1. Don't check, let the linker complain (status quo)
2. Check whether the found library is a symlink, and if not valid,
remove it silently from
Am Donnerstag, den 29.09.2011, 09:22 +0200 schrieb Hendrik Sattler:
Zitat von Michael Wild them...@gmail.com:
Just a few of my thoughts on this:
Same for me.
- There are several ways to handle dead symlinks:
1. Don't check, let the linker complain (status quo)
2. Check whether
Zitat von Micha Renner micha.ren...@t-online.de:
Am Donnerstag, den 29.09.2011, 09:22 +0200 schrieb Hendrik Sattler:
Zitat von Michael Wild them...@gmail.com:
Just a few of my thoughts on this:
Same for me.
- There are several ways to handle dead symlinks:
1. Don't check, let the linker
Am Donnerstag, den 29.09.2011, 10:32 +0200 schrieb Hendrik Sattler:
Zitat von Micha Renner micha.ren...@t-online.de:
Am Donnerstag, den 29.09.2011, 09:22 +0200 schrieb Hendrik Sattler:
Zitat von Michael Wild them...@gmail.com:
Just a few of my thoughts on this:
Same for me.
-
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 2:59 AM, Michael Wild them...@gmail.com wrote:
Just a few of my thoughts on this:
- There are several ways to handle dead symlinks:
1. Don't check, let the linker complain (status quo)
2. Check whether the found library is a symlink, and if not valid,
remove
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 3:22 AM, Hendrik Sattler p...@hendrik-sattler.dewrote:
People tend to misunderstand the purpose of build systems like CMake and
autotools. They try to make the detection bullet-proof and most likely fail.
You can see that this is wrong by looking at those auto* setups
On 09/28/2011 07:47 AM, Clifford Yapp wrote:
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 12:13 AM, Michael Wild them...@gmail.com
mailto:them...@gmail.com wrote:
On 09/28/2011 02:44 AM, Clifford Yapp wrote:
I've run into a situation where find_library is returning a symlink:
2011/9/28 Michael Wild them...@gmail.com:
On 09/28/2011 07:47 AM, Clifford Yapp wrote:
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 12:13 AM, Michael Wild them...@gmail.com
mailto:them...@gmail.com wrote:
On 09/28/2011 02:44 AM, Clifford Yapp wrote:
I've run into a situation where find_library is
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 2:47 AM, Michael Wild them...@gmail.com wrote:
Only if your installation is broken ;-) If the symlink is broken, I
consider this to be a user-error. Period. OTOH, CMake /could/ check
whether the library is a symlink, and if it is, check that it is valid.
Oh, no
On 09/29/2011 01:30 AM, Clifford Yapp wrote:
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 2:47 AM, Michael Wild them...@gmail.com wrote:
Only if your installation is broken ;-) If the symlink is broken, I
consider this to be a user-error. Period. OTOH, CMake /could/ check
whether the library is a symlink, and
On 09/29/2011 02:52 AM, Michael Hertling wrote:
On 09/29/2011 01:30 AM, Clifford Yapp wrote:
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 2:47 AM, Michael Wild them...@gmail.com wrote:
Only if your installation is broken ;-) If the symlink is broken, I
consider this to be a user-error. Period. OTOH, CMake
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 8:52 PM, Michael Hertling mhertl...@online.dewrote:
What do you do on systems which have no idea of symbolic links, e.g.
previous Windows versions? Adding more platform-specific code to the
sources of the FIND_LIBRARY() function?
If the problem isn't solved (or readily
I've run into a situation where find_library is returning a symlink:
/usr/lib/libblah.so - libblah.so.1
but libblah.so.1 does not actually exist (e.g. the symlink is bad).
Is there an option I can set to have find_library ensure that a found
library file is valid and links?
Cheers,
CY
--
On 09/28/2011 02:44 AM, Clifford Yapp wrote:
I've run into a situation where find_library is returning a symlink:
/usr/lib/libblah.so - libblah.so.1
but libblah.so.1 does not actually exist (e.g. the symlink is bad).
Is there an option I can set to have find_library ensure that a found
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 12:13 AM, Michael Wild them...@gmail.com wrote:
On 09/28/2011 02:44 AM, Clifford Yapp wrote:
I've run into a situation where find_library is returning a symlink:
/usr/lib/libblah.so - libblah.so.1
but libblah.so.1 does not actually exist (e.g. the symlink is
Michael Wild wrote:
On 09/28/2011 02:44 AM, Clifford Yapp wrote:
I've run into a situation where find_library is returning a symlink:
/usr/lib/libblah.so - libblah.so.1
but libblah.so.1 does not actually exist (e.g. the symlink is bad).
Is there an option I can set to have
20 matches
Mail list logo
