Re: autotools not suited to proprietary development?

2006-10-05 Thread Ryan McDougall
On Wed, 2006-10-04 at 21:33 -0700, Andre Stechert wrote: > On Oct 4, 2006, at 8:55 PM, Ryan McDougall wrote: > > > However the problem remains that Im at a bit of a loss how to ship a > > shared .SO library easily. If I build on my machine (or a set of > > supported build machines) then the build

Re: autotools not suited to proprietary development?

2006-10-05 Thread Tim Van Holder
Ryan McDougall wrote: > should I understand that (for example) when redhat/debian build lets say > libc for packaging as a binary, they download a tarball and do a > complicated form > './configure --prefix=/usr && make && make install' on a bare machine > without any libc, then tar up the result

Re: autotools not suited to proprietary development?

2006-10-05 Thread Russ Allbery
Ryan McDougall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > should I understand that (for example) when redhat/debian build lets say > libc for packaging as a binary, they download a tarball and do a > complicated form > './configure --prefix=/usr && make && make install' on a bare machine > without any libc, t

Re: autotools not suited to proprietary development?

2006-10-05 Thread Russ Allbery
Tim Van Holder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > They do the equivalent of > > > ./configure --prefix=/usr > make (possibly "make check" instead) > make install DESTDIR= > cd > The cd isn't really necessary (Debian packages as a rule don't cd, but instead use debian/tmp or debian/

Re: Dependence on object files listed in link script

2006-10-05 Thread Tzu-Chien Chiu
2006/10/4, Stepan Kasal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 11:59:40AM +0800, Tzu-Chien Chiu wrote: > bar_LDADD = @top_builddir@/xyz.la > bar_DEPENDENCIES = $(bar_LDADD) @many_objs@ a few nits first: all AC_SUBSTed variables are available as make variables, so you can use $(top_builddi