Weird problem with LIBADD

2006-10-06 Thread Sylvestre Ledru
Hello, I have a problem with LIBADD in one of my Makefile.am. I am building a library thanks to libtool with C and Fortran sources (nothing really eccentric here). lib_LTLIBRARIES = libcore.la libcore_la_SOURCES = $(CORE_C_SOURCES) $(CORE_FORTRAN_SOURCES) $(GATEWAY_C_SOURCES) $(GATEWAY_FORTRAN_S

Re: Weird problem with LIBADD

2006-10-06 Thread Ralf Wildenhues
Hello Sylvestre, I can look at your issue sometime next week at the earliest, but here are some quick notes: * Sylvestre Ledru wrote on Fri, Oct 06, 2006 at 03:24:27PM CEST: > > This lib has many dependencies. The following: ... > libcore_la_DEPENDENCIES = \ > $(top_builddir)/libs/blas/libblas

Re: Weird problem with LIBADD

2006-10-06 Thread Sylvestre Ledru
> ... is shorter (and more precisely) written as follows: ... > > libcore_la_LIBADD = \ > $(top_builddir)/libs/blas/libblas.la \ > $(top_builddir)/libs/lapack/liblapack.la \ > $(top_builddir)/libs/MALLOC/libmalloc.la \ > $(top_builddir)/modules/cacsd/libcacsd.la \ > $(top_builddir)/modules/differ

Re: Weird problem with LIBADD

2006-10-06 Thread Ralf Wildenhues
* Sylvestre Ledru wrote on Fri, Oct 06, 2006 at 04:24:14PM CEST: > > > Show how you create this library: > > $(top_builddir)/modules/signal_processing/libsignal_processing.la > > (i.e., the command line used to create it). It looks like it depends on > > libcore.la (which would be a circular de

Re: Weird problem with LIBADD

2006-10-06 Thread Robert Boehne
Ralf Wildenhues wrote: * Sylvestre Ledru wrote on Fri, Oct 06, 2006 at 04:24:14PM CEST: Show how you create this library: $(top_builddir)/modules/signal_processing/libsignal_processing.la (i.e., the command line used to create it). It looks like it depends on libcore.la (which would be

Re: autotools not suited to proprietary development?

2006-10-06 Thread Warren Young
Andre Stechert wrote: I think you're confusing the idea of a build system for portable software (something the autotools suite can help with) and an installer (or package if you're installing onto a system that has a package manager). Yes. It's not that autotools do the wrong thing, it's that

Re: autotools not suited to proprietary development?

2006-10-06 Thread Russ Allbery
Warren Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > It's not that autotools do the wrong thing, it's that we're currently > missing a tool that you might call "autopackage". It would need to make > RPMs and DEBs on Linux, EXEs on Windows, PKG+MPKG+DMG bundles on OS X, > etc. There are a *lot* of decision