Quoting Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
* Benoit Sigoure wrote on Mon, Dec 18, 2006 at 07:32:13PM CET:
Quoting Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>* Benoit Sigoure wrote on Mon, Dec 18, 2006 at 02:35:43PM CET:
>>
>>what's the right why of distributing binary packages that are relocatable?
>
>With shared libraries: in general, that is not possible portably.
[...]
Alright I knew that, in that case, let's assume I only use static libraries
on
Linux if that helps. What is The Recommended Way of distributing relocatable
binaries (actually relocatable libraries in this case) ?
I can offer this link:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2003-03/msg00020.html
Thank you, that's a very valuable one.
and for .la files I could probably hack up a sed script that works for
you (but not for every conceivable case). I don't have enough
experience with either to call it The Recommended Way. ;-)
Thanks but I can do that myself, I just wanted to be aware of some
common way to
address this issue.
>This, however, looks like a bug somewhere, iff libjpeg was built during
>the build.
You made an important point "iff libjpeg was built". No, it wasn't.
Actually I ran svn up, ran configure again to set the prefix and ran
make. Several things were recompiled, but not libjpeg. That's a bit
unexpected but I can guess why this might not be seen as a bug in
itself.
Probably not. Well, at least currently automake doesn't place an
explicit dependency of libraries on either their Makefile or
config.status (either one would help you). So you'd have to force
rebuilding the library yourself.
Any reason why this dependency isn't provided by automake? (I'm just curious).
In case 'make clean && make' is too expensive, this cleans only libtool
libraries, fairly portably, in a top build directory:
find . -name \*.la | xargs ./libtool --mode=clean rm -f
Thanks for the hint.
--
SIGOURE Benoit aka Tsuna
_____
/EPITA\ Promo 2008, LRDE
_______________________________________________
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
