On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 7:43 AM, Peter O'Gorman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Dan Nicholson wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 6:37 PM, Peter O'Gorman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> I am pretty sure that you can similarly avoid the need for a fake > >> convenience .la, but can not work it out without actually attempting a > >> build :) > > > > How do you suppose that would work? Do I somehow tell libtool "this > > other static library is pic, I'd like you to disassemble the objects > > like a convenience library". If you actually want to try on > > xserver/mesa, I can point you to the necessary repos and what packages > > are necessary for the build. > > Not sure, in order to avoid the need to have a fake .la file or a bunch > of fake .lo files, you would need to build with libtool. It might be > possible to do that by, for example, having a target in mesa that simply > outputs a list of sources to a file, and use that list in an xserver > makefile.am.
That was the idea the Mesa maintainer had, but I was running into problems needing the list to be known at automake time. My autotools skills have gotten a lot more polished since then, so maybe I'll take another look at this possibility. Here's an old thread if you have any interest: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xorg/2006-October/018656.html Do you know if there's any way for automake to ignore the "include" keyword? I.e., I really want the "include" to be processed by make, not automake. The only ugly way I could think of was to include a dummy file that had the real includes. > I have not really thought about it, and unfortunately, do > not have the time to help you. I am very happy that someone is doing > this however, as I have run into problems building xserver and > attempting to use a newer mesa. symlink-mesa.sh or whatever it's called > is not pretty. Oh, I don't expect you to jump into this one. I'm very happy to just get some advice from people with a lot of autotools experience. And, yes, I'm pretty sure everyone hates the current situation and has been bitten by it. But there's never been a real clear path to fixing it. > > Just to be sure, though: If I'm able to ensure that the static library > > is pic, are there any other barriers to the fake .la approach? I just > > want to make sure I know the limitations before proposing this. > > It should work. OK. I'll keep this patchset around as it seems to work. But I think I'll pursue the other idea for a while, too. -- Dan _______________________________________________ http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
