On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 1:19 PM, Paolo Bonzini <bonz...@gnu.org> wrote: > > On 09/27/2010 03:41 PM, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: >> >> Thanks for the explanation! >> >> On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 7:17 AM, Ralf Wildenhues<ralf.wildenh...@gmx.de> >> wrote: >>>> >>>> Also, why not take the value of the sysroot from the DESTDIR automake >>>> variable? >>> >>> Because we know DESTDIR far too late, only at 'make install' time and >>> not yet at the time we link against dependent libraries (that may >>> already be installed below the sysroot). >> >> But you do relink the libraries when 'make install' is executed. >> So why not relink it with proper sysroot? > > Because if you removed sysroot syntax upon "make install", you would not be > able to link future code with the newly-installed library. > > Note that it's perfectly possible to use .la files on the final system that > didn't go through "libtool --mode=finish", as long as all the packages you > compile are upgraded to Libtool 2.4 (and IIUC, cygwin's packaging system for > example is already re-libtoolizing each package, so it's not that hard to do > this). > > Paolo
I wanted to see the process this way... export SYSROOT=/tmp/root1 package1: ./configure package1: make install DESTDIR=/tmp/root1 package2: ./configure package2: make install DESTDIR=/tmp/root2 1. No need to update existing builds, adding --with-sysroot to all configure statements is harder. 2. You can assume DESTDIR is base root (own sysroot), and while linking and all take the SYSROOT environment as base. So I don't really understand the '=' in the .la files. You can always add the SYSROOT prefix to everything in .la if it resides within the SYSROOT. Alon _______________________________________________ http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
