On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 02:27:42PM +0100, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > Hi Jacob, > > * Jacob Meuser wrote on Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 03:57:03AM CET: > > On Wed, Jan 25, 2006 at 02:14:08PM +0100, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > > * Carlo Contavalli wrote on Wed, Jan 25, 2006 at 12:42:15PM CET: > > > > Hello, > > > > I have two libraries: libtesta and libtestb. libtestb depends > > > > upon libtesta. The compilation process is fine. If I make install, > > > > it seems ok. However, if I: > > > > > > > > make install DESTDIR=/tmp/root.openbsd/ > > > > > > > > On linux it seems to work ok, with a couple warnings. On OpenBSD, > > > > libtool returns the error: > > > > > > Please rerun the relink with --debug added (add it manually to the > > > respective line in the uninstalled libtestb.la file). Also please > > > post `../../libtool --config' (preferably packed). > > > > > > Please also show how you configured the package. > > > > > > > gcc -shared -fPIC -DPIC -o .libs/libtestb.so.0.0 .libs/test1.o > > > > .libs/test2.o /usr/local/lib/libtesta.so.0.0 > > > > > > Yeah, most likely part of the problem is a bug I introduced right before > > > 1.5.22. But there might be more issues to it. > > > > this is a long standing problem, actually. it is related to > > hardcode_direct=yes. there is a workaround in OpenBSD's libtool port > > for about 1.5 years: > > It's a workaround.
agreed. it is a relatively cheap "fix". > If `$libdir/$linklib' happens to actually exist but > be the wrong thing, it fails to work around; true. however, this is really close to the same problem as already exists wrt library search paths. so it's not creating any more of a problem than already exists. will need to be reexamined soon though :) > if it does not exist, > libtool fails to add hardcoding for the respective library, resulting in > execution startup failure. it's not a problem on OpenBSD, because OpenBSD doesn't rely on the path being hardcoded. in fact, it it preferred that the paths are not hardcoded. > > I have brought this up here before ... > > > > http://www.archivum.info/[email protected]/2004-11/msg00481.html > > You brought it up there, but the cited thread actually deals with a > slightly different problem, IIRC. yes. I did bring it up on it's own at some point, but I did not find that message in the archives (didn't look all that hard). -- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
