* Jan Engelhardt wrote on Tue, Nov 04, 2008 at 07:58:36AM CET:
>
> So I guess the reasons why distros remove the .la files is because
> they are within the default search paths.
Yes; and because some versions of libtool did the wrong thing wrt.
multi-ABI systems like x86_64. (BTW if there are st
* Dan Nicholson wrote on Mon, Nov 03, 2008 at 11:17:57PM CET:
> P.S. Why do you keep setting the reply-to on your emails to me? I try
> to reply to your messages and end up sending them to myself.
I don't set Reply-To: at all. My mail program (mutt) sets
Mail-Followup-To: to the list address and
On Monday 2008-11-03 22:59, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
>* Ralf Wildenhues wrote on Mon, Nov 03, 2008 at 09:14:31AM CET:
>> * Jan Engelhardt wrote on Mon, Nov 03, 2008 at 07:39:56AM CET:
>> > Is not that what libtool is supposed to cover up? Maybe not for every
>> > make invocation à la `make LD=zzzld`
I would like to build and install several revisions of a large system
(hours to compile on slower machines).
My hope was to build the project in a central location so unchanged files
wouldn't need to recompile, and then have libtool relink everything and
fix the RPATHs during install. This do
On Mon, 3 Nov 2008, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Rather, the right solution is to make libtool work right in the presence
of installed .la files in those cases where it does not do the right
thing at the moment.
What is the "right" behavior? It seems that sometimes a problem
encountered due to lin
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 3:06 PM, Roumen Petrov
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dan Nicholson wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 2:05 PM, Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>
> [SNIP]
>>
>> Oh, well. You do know that all the linux distros (that I know of)
>> remove the .la files, right?
>
>
Dan Nicholson wrote:
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 2:05 PM, Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[SNIP]
Oh, well. You do know that all the linux distros (that I know of)
remove the .la files, right?
NO
I was sort of hoping there would be a
nice way to do that.
Check content of so called "d
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 2:05 PM, Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello Dan,
>
> * Dan Nicholson wrote on Mon, Nov 03, 2008 at 03:17:53PM CET:
>> On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 12:59 PM, Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > * Dan Nicholson wrote on Sat, Nov 01, 2008 at 09:48:28PM CET:
Hello Dan,
* Dan Nicholson wrote on Mon, Nov 03, 2008 at 03:17:53PM CET:
> On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 12:59 PM, Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > * Dan Nicholson wrote on Sat, Nov 01, 2008 at 09:48:28PM CET:
> >> Add an option, --no-la-files, which skips installing the .la files. When
> >
* Ralf Wildenhues wrote on Mon, Nov 03, 2008 at 09:14:31AM CET:
> * Jan Engelhardt wrote on Mon, Nov 03, 2008 at 07:39:56AM CET:
> > Is not that what libtool is supposed to cover up? Maybe not for every
> > make invocation à la `make LD=zzzld`, but perhaps determining the
> > type of ld at configur
On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 12:59 PM, Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello Dan,
>
> * Dan Nicholson wrote on Sat, Nov 01, 2008 at 09:48:28PM CET:
>> Add an option, --no-la-files, which skips installing the .la files. When
>> used with --mode=uninstall, libtool tries to use the .lai file fr
* Jan Engelhardt wrote on Mon, Nov 03, 2008 at 07:39:56AM CET:
> On Sunday 2008-11-02 21:56, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> >* Jan Engelhardt wrote on Sun, Nov 02, 2008 at 05:24:27PM CET:
> >>
> >> I have two libraries in paths that are not searched by default (e.g.
> >> /opt/foo/lib). So I have this i
12 matches
Mail list logo
