Es schrieb Dan Kegel: > > Yes. Doc and headers would stay on the build system. > > > It is however > > uncertain, e.g. on some build hosts, you could not > > read the manpages, while they are needed on the target > > host. Or just the other way round, useless on the > > target host, and useful on the build host. > > Not worried about those cases. They are well served > by the current situation.
*grin* > > > It's not easy to decide about that. It all brings us > > back to the question to consider some configure > > options to make a multi build - currently, I do this > > using a handmade toplevel configure that creates two > > subdirectories, and then calls the real autoconf > > configure from that subdirectory. > > Yes, I'm doing something like that now. (For each > open source package I install, I have a top-level > Makefile.in that knows how to unpack, configure, and > install the open source package.) > > I don't think this does the trick, though. I can't see > how it lets you install binaries and shared libs to a staging > area for transfer to the target, and everything else to > their final location on the build system, while making > sure that libtool is told the proper final location > of shared libraries as they will appear upon boot of the target. now that's a good one - the .la file does have the information where the lib will be on the target system. And we want to retain it on the build system to have it ready for other packages to benefit from the information. That would be perfect to compile a complete series of packages during cross-compiling. And obviously, the whole thing of two configure/build runs is just too much, the created libraries and binaries are the same, so the work is double without need. IYAM, the problem is not specifically in libtool or autoconf, but in automake - we just need another install target like "make install-buildfiles". Okay, we would need one additional vector in configure, something like a --build-prefix, so that it gets patched in just so, but it is not specifically needed, it would be about enough to give a make install-buildfiles BUILDPREFIX=xx. However, hmm, *scratchinghead* in the case that we did run a crosscompiler, the configure does know the default location of our cross build tools anyway *hmmm* - still, the biggest support would be needed in the makefile to install into a buildtool path and WITHOUT the need to relink there. does this get us on the right track? -- guido http://freespace.sf.net/guidod GCS/E/S/P C++/++++$ ULHS L++w- N++@ d(+-) s+a- r+@>+++ y++ 5++X- (geekcode)
