On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 01:27:31PM +0000, Woodhouse, David wrote: > On Thu, 2012-11-08 at 14:06 +0100, Marc Espie wrote: > > *our* libtool looks first under .libs. If it doesn't, that's a bug. > > I surmise the bug-reporter is actually using gnu-libtool, or the > > libtool generated by THAT software. > > Hm, yes. I am *indeed* using GNU libtool. That's confusing; I didn't > even know it was installed. If I run 'libtool --version', I get the > non-GNU one. But "./libtool" in my build directory ??? built from the git > tree with libtoolize on the OpenBSD system, not from a tarball which > obviously would have its own pre-autotoolised stuff ??? is the GNU one. > > So perhaps the next question is: what's wrong with my ./autogen.sh > script? It currently looks like this: > > #!/bin/sh > > aclocal && \ > libtoolize --automake --copy --force && \ > automake --foreign --add-missing && \ > autoconf > > Should it have some kind of special case for OpenBSD? It looks like > 'libtoolize' on my default path is the GNU one, while 'libtool' isn't. I > don't think I did anything to screw with that; this should be a simple > OpenBSD 5.2 install. > > And even if I fix the autogen.sh script for people building from the git > tree, what about tarball releases that I make? Do I just let people know > that those are *broken* on OpenBSD because GNU libtool doesn't work > there? > > Confused... and hating autohell a little more than I did yesterday. > Which I didn't know was possible.
Pass LIBTOOL=/usr/bin/libtool on make's command line. Trying to get through the spaghetti of gnu autocrap only leads to insanity. That falls under the "don't fight that shit, it's hopeless".
