> > It is entirely possible that you've found a bug, Mac OS X should work
> > the same as linux et.al. in this regard. Does the module itself have any
> > dependencies that possibly are not being found (check with otool -L
> > mymodule.0.so)? If that is not the case, please send more info (if you
> > like you can send me the project offline and I'll look into it).
>
> Yes, the mymodule.la does have a dependent library, also built. (otool -L
> ../../libs/.libs/mymodule.0.so confirms that the dependent library is
> being referenced in the final installed location via absolute path, where
> it does not yet exist.) In fact, if I make another test module *without*
> any additional LIBADD dependencies in the same place as mymodule.la, the
> executable is able to lt_dlopen it without errors. So the lt_dlerror
> message from before is misleading; it's probably finding the first library
> fine, just not its dependency, and reporting an error on the first
> library.
Hi,
Reduced test case project posted at:
http://www.csl.cornell.edu/~fang/sw/ltdl_test-0.0.0.tar.bz2 [450k]
Project is self-contained and autotoolized.
tar xjvf ... ; cd ...
configure && make && make check (&& make distcheck)
Should pass on Linux, FreeBSD, currently fails on Darwin.
I didn't get around to adding installcheck-local tests yet, maybe later...
Hope this is enough to resolve the issue some more.
Fang
_______________________________________________
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
