On 04/20/2011 07:21 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Why do you ever need to use the former? (It can come in handy in
included Makefile.am fragments.) The important bits are: however
you specify a file in one Makefile.am, you should always do it the
same way, or things may go wrong. So a library built from the same
Makefile.am should have a relative name; but arguably, you could
also write, e.g.,
lib_LTLIBRARIES = ./libfoo.la
__libfoo_la_SOURCES = ...
if you really want to make your life hard; I'd always suggest
lib_LTLIBRARIES = libfoo.la
libfoo_la_SOURCES = ...
and using plain 'libfoo.la' in libbar_la_LIBADD.
Thanks Ralf.
I'm trying to link to a library built using a different Makefile.am in a
different location in the source tree. I haven't been able to get the
plain "libfoo.la" to work for that. Is there a way to do so?
The only way I've found that works is to give the complete relative path
using $(top_builddir).
Sorry if I'm misunderstanding something; I really appreciate the help.
- Daniel
