Re: Cyclic dependencies

[Steve M. Robbins]

On Sat, Jun 14, 2003 at 10:25:49AM +1000, Kevin Ryde wrote:
 Thomas Maier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 
  if linux's behaviour is really extraordinary or if systems
  with such limited library features are slowly dying away?
 
 Making just one pass across a -lfoo library at its point in the
 command line is traditional unix style, for .a libraries.  

Precisely.

 I'm not certain but I guess shared libraries and runtime binding are
 why things seem looser these days.

Yeah.  But you really should get things in order anyway, just in you
want to link it -static someday.  I learned that one the hard way: try
figuring out the correct order for all those pesky X libraries
sometime!  ;-)

-S



___
Libtool mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool

Re: Version numbering change on IRIX

[Steve M. Robbins]

On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 05:34:33PM +0100, Rainer Orth wrote:
 Robert,
 
  This change was a long time coming, so many people have complained
  about having libx.so.1 under Solars/Linux and having libx.so.2 under IRIX.
  Adding 1 to the version isn't necessary, I've looked everywhere I could
  think of to find out why this was done in the first place, but found
  none.  I realize this change doesn't fix anything, and could potentially
  cause problems, but these will be transient, and it is consistent with
  other platforms.
 
 indeed: breaking every application linked against the old (overwritten)
 version of affected libraries is certainly a problem.  This will be
 transient since people will be forced to rebuild/relink every affected
 application; something I consider a nightmare in big installations,
 especially when libraries used all over the place (like the GCC runtime
 libraries) are affected.
 
 I can already hear the outcry from affected users and admins; I don't want
 to be in the position to explain to them that their applications had to be
 broken for cosmetic reasons and consistency with other platforms.

I think Rainer has a point.  This change shouldn't be made lightly.

Perhaps the add 1 for IRIX behaviour could be made a libtool option
that is ON by default?

-S



___
Libtool mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool

Re: Converting a project to libtool

[Steve M. Robbins]

On Wed, Sep 18, 2002 at 04:16:24PM -0700, Jeff Bailey wrote:
 I'm converting a project to libtool, and need to maintain the existing
 SONAME and library names.  I can't find a FAQ to see if there's a good
 way to do this. 


I think the answer is no, there's no good way to do this.

This is mainly because when you pass -version-info C:R:A to libtool,
the SONAME that results can be different between different systems.
Indeed, some systems (IRIX, I think) don't even have a single SONAME.

If you aim a bit lower, and are only concerned about keeping the
SONAME for one system, say linux, then you can just reverse-engineer
the computation that libtool does.  Then choose values for Current,
Revision, and Age that give you the answer you want.

-S


___
Libtool mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool

Re: libtool for C++

[Steve M. Robbins]

On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 04:48:04PM -0600, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
 On Mon, 28 Jan 2002, Robert Boehne wrote:
 
  It is NOT up-to-date for CVS HEAD and alpha versions of Libtool.
 
 I recall that this documentation was updated in the muti-lingual
 branch.  Perhaps it was not merged over as it should have been?

Okay, I checked out 'multi-language-branch', and diff'ed the file
doc/libtool.texi.  There are lots of differences!

At the section in question, however, there is simply the addition
of the following note.

@emph{NOTE}: The problems described in this section may no longer
relevant due to the @samp{libtool} multi-language support.  To
enable C++ support in libtool, use the @code{AC_LIBTOOL_CXX} macro
in your @file{configure.in} file.

Since the note is written in the conditional voice, I don't really
know what to make of it.  Are the problems relevant or not?

Am I okay as long as the library has no static variables?  If so, is
that true of the released libtool?


Regards,
-Steve

P.S.  Perhaps the note needs revision: elsewhere in the docs, I see
that you don't really need AC_LIBTOOL_CXX, as long as AC_PROG_CXX is
used.

-- 
by Rocket to the Moon,
by Airplane to the Rocket,
by Taxi to the Airport,
by Frontdoor to the Taxi,
by throwing back the blanket and laying down the legs ...
- They Might Be Giants


___
Libtool mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool