On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 10:17:24PM -0400, David Reiser wrote: > > On May 31, 2006, at 7:39 PM, Chris Shoemaker wrote: > > >On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 05:57:22PM -0400, David Reiser wrote: > >> > >>On May 31, 2006, at 1:22 PM, Derek Atkins wrote: > >> > >>>Chris Shoemaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >>> > >>>>>Yes, my ltmain.sh has the line. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>>Any news on this front? Maybe we should ask some libtool folks for > >>>>some help. > >>> > >>>Are you sure that a shared object is still supposed to be called > >>>".so" on Mac? Are you sure this isn't a glib/gmodule bug? > >> > >>loadable modules (as opposed to shared libraries) can have any > >>extension. Apple recommends .bundle, but the world at large seems to > >>prefer .so. > >> > > > >Yes, and AFAICT, .so has worked for a long time. We've verified that > >libtool is correctly building a shared module. It's just the > >unconventional .dylib extension that's a problem. So either: > > > >a) new libtools changed the convention (unlikely); or > > > >b) something about your setup is causing libtool to name shared > >modules .dylib; or > > > >c) something about our use of libtool is wrong. > > > >But I don't know what c) would be, since it's building the correct > >file, and the extension is something libtool is supposed to hide from > >us. > > > >>The fink folk have some information: > >> > >> http://fink.sourceforge.net/doc/porting/shared.php > >> > >>I'm hoping that's enough to answer chris' initial questions > >> > > > >That's a helpful document for understanding how it's _supposed_ to > >work, but it doesn't tell me what's wrong. > > I started a thread in fink-devel: http://thread.gmane.org/ > gmane.os.macosx.fink.devel/12837/focus=12837 > > In addition to the first pointer to the fink docs, there has been > some additional info: > > From David Morrision: > "Another useful fact, not mentioned on that page: these days, libtool > and its autoconf friends can automatically name bundles as .so files > if they are set up properly. Perhaps Peter O'Gorman can give some > advice on this." > > So Chris is on the right track, I just have to find the right > incantation. > > And from Peter O'Gorman: > "Gnucash has a whole bunch of libraries that are also loadable modules > and is one of the reasons that dlcompat got written all those years ago. > Gnucash-1.8 and 1.9 may differ in this regard though, I do not know. > > 1.8 always uses libltdl or guile to load modules, and guile always uses > it's own libltdl, libltdl has a hard-coded-at-compile-time idea of what > the loadable module extension is, and depending on the libtool version, > that will either be .so or .dylib on darwin. This should not matter if > the .la files are kept around though, as the .la file has the dlopenable > name in it. > > gnucash-1.9 probably still uses libltdl to open modules, doesn't it?"
This module is loaded using gmodule. I don't know if gmodule uses libltdl. > > But that is a bit strange, because I do have the .la file around. And what does it contain for dlname= ? -chris _______________________________________________ gnucash-devel mailing list gnucash-devel@gnucash.org https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
