On 3/20/06, Carlos Eduardo de Brito Novaes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Em Sábado 18 Março 2006 21:56, Lennon Cook escreveu: > > And so the question becomes - what would be the best course > > of action here? Is it safe to just adjust the paths in this file, or > > would I be better to recompile GTK with glib living in /opt? > I dont really think it is necessary to recompile anything. I understand that > if you recompile a package with the same compiler and options, you will get > the same binary files. Except for the hardcoded paths that seens to exist in > the real base librarys from glib or the compilers in gcc. I've ended up deciding to recompile GTK despite the non-necesity of it, simply because last time I recompiled it, I managed to leave out a feature I need (SVG support). Also, I've resolved to use symlinks after all, for a few reasons. Most notably: - It takes a lot of time out of running /etc/profile if it doesn't have hundreds of loops and checks in it to determine the path. This way, I need only to keep the symlinks up to date (and I have a script to refresh them that I'll run once in a while), rather than setting up various envvars (PATH, PYTHONPATH, LD_LIBRARY_PATH, PKG_CONFIG_PATH ...) by brute-forcing through /opt /every time/ I log in (I use su - alot...). This also makes it bearable to do things like 'echo $PKG_CONFIG_PATH' . - Symlinks can be updated in a live system - envvars need to be reset, and then /every app that needs them/ restarted. - Packages that *don't* use libtool, and so don't know about the *.la files, need the -L /foo/bar options passed manually - both for finding their dependancies, and (much worse) to be found by any package that happens to depend on them. With symlinks, I just need to have LD_FLAGS="... -L /Index/Libraries"
> Maybe you can do this to track the changes in the .la files. > > I really dont understand the real meaning of .la files, but as I already told, > I had to change a file in the past to compile a package, and it worked. The libtool explanation certainly makes sense. I'll look for some documentation to confirm it, but I think that you were mostly right. > I wonder if a good automake implementation > does not need the .la files. I think that absolutely nothing should need it if you keep your envvars up-to-date. But the nature of envvars makes this difficult, as mentioned above. Now that I'm beggining to understand how it works, libtool (and, for that matter, pkg-config) strikes me as a horrid kludge, but I don't think theres any real alternative. My symlinks are also kludgy, but I believe them to be slightly less so, since they have the added benifit of not needing packages to know about them to be useful. > Are you moving packages like this for any special reason? The end result is to move to a GoboLinux inspired filesystem heirachy (although one that is, to my mind, better). Also, I'm trying to learn something along the way. > Would you be so kind to report us your sucess? Certainly. -- Lennon Victor Cook "He who receives an idea from me receives without lessening, as he who lights his candle at mine receives light without darkening" - Thomas Jefferson -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
