On 13.07.2007 [18:14:55 -0400], Mike Frysinger wrote: > this patch to the Makefile: > - respect env CFLAGS/LDFLAGS/CPPFLAGS > - add proper SONAME to shared libs > - make "install" target depend on "libs", not "all" otherwise test gets > forced ... this allows package maintainers to split the test/install steps up > properly in their distribution > -mike
> --- Makefile > +++ Makefile -p1 please? > @@ -13,9 +13,10 @@ > > INSTALL = install > > -LDFLAGS = --no-undefined-version -Wl,--version-script=version.lds > -CFLAGS = -O2 -Wall -fPIC -g > -CPPFLAGS = -D__LIBHUGETLBFS__ > +LDFLAGS += --no-undefined-version -Wl,--version-script=version.lds Seems good. > +CFLAGS ?= -O2 -g > +CFLAGS += -Wall -fPIC Why the difference between ?= and += here? Ah, one says, if CFLAGS is already set (meaning optimization levels, etc, most likely), don't change it (but do so, if it is unset) and the other says always add these two options Seems sensible then. > +CPPFLAGS += -D__LIBHUGETLBFS__ Yep. > ARCH = $(shell uname -m | sed -e s/i.86/i386/) > > @@ -145,11 +146,11 @@ > > obj32/libhugetlbfs.so: $(LIBOBJS:%=obj32/%) > @$(VECHO) LD32 "(shared)" $@ > - $(CC32) $(LDFLAGS) -shared -o $@ $^ $(LDLIBS) > + $(CC32) $(LDFLAGS) -Wl,-soname,$@ -shared -o $@ $^ $(LDLIBS) > > obj64/libhugetlbfs.so: $(LIBOBJS:%=obj64/%) > @$(VECHO) LD64 "(shared)" $@ > - $(CC64) $(LDFLAGS) -shared -o $@ $^ $(LDLIBS) > + $(CC64) $(LDFLAGS) -Wl,-soname,$@ -shared -o $@ $^ $(LDLIBS) Makes sense. What is the functional change here, though? That is what does having a proper "soname" do? (I've looked at the ld manpage, but it's still not quite clear). > obj32/%.i: %.c > @$(VECHO) CPP $@ > @@ -206,7 +206,7 @@ > @$(VECHO) OBJSCRIPT $* > sed "s!### SET DEFAULT LDSCRIPT PATH HERE > ###!HUGETLB_LDSCRIPT_PATH=$(LDSCRIPTDIR)!" < $< > $@ > > -install: all $(OBJDIRS:%=%/install) $(INSTALL_OBJSCRIPT:%=objscript.%) > +install: libs $(OBJDIRS:%=%/install) $(INSTALL_OBJSCRIPT:%=objscript.%) Yep, especially given there is a separate install-tests target. If you could resubmit with a Signed-off-by line and in -p1 format, I'll apply the patch and it will be in the next release (I expect to be ready for 1.2-rc1 soon). Does this mean libhugetlbfs will be available via portage? Thanks, Nish -- Nishanth Aravamudan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> IBM Linux Technology Center ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ _______________________________________________ Libhugetlbfs-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libhugetlbfs-devel
