On Jan 7, 2008, at 4:03 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
On Jan 7, 2008, at 09:14, William Davis wrote:
possible useful info from uni-porting list;
Begin forwarded message:
From: Martin Costabel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: December 30, 2007 8:12:57 AM EST
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Beginner question -- how to resolve dependent dylib's
when linking
Peter O'Gorman wrote:
Mike Kelsey wrote:
Is there an option I can give to |libtool| or/and |ld|, such
that dependent
libraries mentioned inside .dylib's will be resolved via the -L
options?
See -dylib_file in the ld(1) manpage.
If you are on Leopard, you probably don't have to do anything in
this case. It is standard behavior there (in most situations
perceived as an annoying bug, though) that indirect libraries are
*not* looked up according to their install_name, but in the
directories defined by -L.
Perversely, you are forced to use -dylib_file, or explicit -L -l
references, if you want them to be looked up at the path mentioned
in the referencing dylib. This wreaks all kinds of havoc if you
have several dylibs of the same name on your system, but in your
situation this may be the behavior you are wishing for.
Presumably you are sending this as information for solving the
"cycle in dylib re-exports" problem we see with some software under
Leopard?
But isn't the solution provided by Apple in their technote already
sufficient to resolve this?
http://developer.apple.com/qa/qa2007/qa1567.html
Or am I misunderstanding your message?
Besides the recycling problem I thought perhaps some other ports which
fail config or build on Leopard might be suffering from trying to find
indirect libs from their "install_name".
William Davis
frstanATbellsouthDOTnet
Mac OS X.5.1 Darwin 9.1.0
X11.app 2.1.1 - (xorg-server 1.3.0-apple5)
Mac Mini Intel Duo @ 1.86 GHz
Mundus vult decepi, ego non
_______________________________________________
macports-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-users
