Sorry for reviving a slightly old thread...
* Paul Eggert wrote on Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 11:41:13PM CEST:
> Patrick Welche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > so the -R made it, and all is well :-)
> >
> > I can't check the opposite though: do systems that don't want rpath get
> > one now?
>
> Yes,
On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 12:18:11AM +, Harlan Stenn wrote:
> I thought he was ssaying that if /bin/ls uses RPATH then configure
> should use RPATH, too.
That's right - the question was how to know whether or not a system
uses rpath without reinventing libtool. In fact choosing some binary
we kn
I thought he was ssaying that if /bin/ls uses RPATH then configure
should use RPATH, too.
H
--
> Patrick Welche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Thu, Jul 20, 2006 at 07:03:27PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> >> Adding -R for system X libraries is always the wrong thing to do on
> >> Debian syst
Patrick Welche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Jul 20, 2006 at 07:03:27PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Adding -R for system X libraries is always the wrong thing to do on
>> Debian systems and will break multiarch builds. I really don't think
>> this is the right solution.
> How about som
On Thu, Jul 20, 2006 at 07:03:27PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > "Peter O'Gorman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> This patch will now add -R to X_LIBS for all systems.
>
> > It's not supposed to. It's supposed to try -R, and add it only if it
> > wor
On Fri, Jul 21, 2006 at 01:13:01AM +0900, Peter O'Gorman wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-07-20 at 08:55 -0700, Paul Eggert wrote:
> > "Peter O'Gorman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > This patch will now add -R to X_LIBS for all systems.
> >
> > It's not supposed to. It's supposed to try -R, and add
Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Peter O'Gorman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> This patch will now add -R to X_LIBS for all systems.
> It's not supposed to. It's supposed to try -R, and add it only if it
> worked.
Adding -R for system X libraries is always the wrong thing to do on De
this directly. How about the following further patch, which
> I just now installed?
>
> 2006-07-20 Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> * lib/autoconf/libs.m4 (AC_PATH_XTRA): Don't use -R if the
> compiler complains about it, even if things works after the
&
6-07-20 Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* lib/autoconf/libs.m4 (AC_PATH_XTRA): Don't use -R if the
compiler complains about it, even if things works after the
complaint. Problem reported by Peter O'Gorman.
--- lib/autoconf/libs.m417 Jul 2006 17:3
On Thu, 2006-07-20 at 08:55 -0700, Paul Eggert wrote:
> "Peter O'Gorman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > This patch will now add -R to X_LIBS for all systems.
>
> It's not supposed to. It's supposed to try -R, and add it only if it
> worked.
>
> > I tried just
> > now on Mac OS X to see the r
"Peter O'Gorman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This patch will now add -R to X_LIBS for all systems.
It's not supposed to. It's supposed to try -R, and add it only if it
worked.
> I tried just
> now on Mac OS X to see the result: powerpc-apple-darwin8-gcc-4.0.1:
> unrecognized option '-R/usr/X1
On Mon, 2006-07-17 at 14:41 -0700, Paul Eggert wrote:
> Patrick Welche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > so the -R made it, and all is well :-)
> >
> > I can't check the opposite though: do systems that don't want rpath get
> > one now?
>
> Yes, they probably do. Perhaps the libtool guys can chi
On Wed, Jul 19, 2006 at 12:26:36PM -0500, Albert Chin wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 09:49:20PM +0100, Patrick Welche wrote:
> > X_CFLAGS = -I/usr/X11R6/include
> > X_EXTRA_LIBS =
> > X_LIBS = -L/usr/X11R6/lib -R/usr/X11R6/lib
> > X_PRE_LIBS = -lSM -lICE
> >
> > so the -R made it, and all is
On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 09:49:20PM +0100, Patrick Welche wrote:
> X_CFLAGS = -I/usr/X11R6/include
> X_EXTRA_LIBS =
> X_LIBS = -L/usr/X11R6/lib -R/usr/X11R6/lib
> X_PRE_LIBS = -lSM -lICE
>
> so the -R made it, and all is well :-)
I thought you wanted -Wl,-rpath,/usr/X11R6/lib though?
--
albe
On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 06:54:16PM -0400, Braden McDaniel wrote:
> Quoting Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > Patrick Welche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > so the -R made it, and all is well :-)
> > >
> > > I can't check the opposite though: do systems that don't want rpath get
> > > on
Quoting Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Patrick Welche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > so the -R made it, and all is well :-)
> >
> > I can't check the opposite though: do systems that don't want rpath get
> > one now?
>
> Yes, they probably do. Perhaps the libtool guys can chime in on
> whe
Patrick Welche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> so the -R made it, and all is well :-)
>
> I can't check the opposite though: do systems that don't want rpath get
> one now?
Yes, they probably do. Perhaps the libtool guys can chime in on
whether the patch was a good idea.
; 2006-07-17 Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> * lib/autoconf/libs.m4 (AC_PATH_XTRA): Do the check for space after
> -R regardless of host. Patrick Welche reports that a space after -R
> is also required for NetBSD 3.99.
Not quite what I reported, NetBS
Thanks for reporting that. Does the following patch to Autoconf 2.60
fix the bug for you? I've installed it into Autoconf CVS (for 2.61)
but I'd like you to verify that it actually works on NetBSD.
2006-07-17 Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* lib/autoconf/libs.m4 (A
I happen to use an OS (NetBSD) which uses rpath. AC_PATH_XTRA sets X_CFLAGS
and X_LIBS to something sensible for compiling X, however, it misses out
the necessary -rpath or -R.
(libtool --config says
# How to pass a linker flag through the compiler.
wl="-Wl,"
# Flag to hardcode $lib
The doc says:
- Macro: AC_PATH_XTRA
An enhanced version of `AC_PATH_X'. It adds the C compiler flags
that X needs to output variable `X_CFLAGS', and the X linker flags
to `X_LIBS'. If X is not available, adds `-DX_DISPLAY_MISSING' to
`X_CFLAGS'
| Hi,
| given this configure.in (a useless case, but it'll serve as an
| example):
|
| == [snip]
|
| AC_INIT(configure.in)
| AC_CONFIG_HEADER(config.h)
|
| if false; then
| AC_PATH_XTRA
| else
| AC_PATH_XTRA
| fi
|
| AC_OUTPUT
|
|
| ==
Hi,
given this configure.in (a useless case, but it'll serve as an
example):
== [snip]
AC_INIT(configure.in)
AC_CONFIG_HEADER(config.h)
if false; then
AC_PATH_XTRA
else
AC_PATH_XTRA
fi
AC_OUTPUT
== [snip]
23 matches
Mail list logo
