Re: Alternate SONAME values

2005-08-09 Thread Keith Packard
On Tue, 2005-08-09 at 15:13 +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > Hi Keith, others, > > Sorry for the response latency. This is a status update for the -sobase > patch: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libtool/2005-07/msg00093.html. Thanks for your response and your work on this matter. > Your patch

Re: Alternate SONAME values

2005-07-11 Thread Keith Packard
On Mon, 2005-07-11 at 13:58 +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > Re-reading this thread, I would be inclined to accept a patch which > implements your original proposal, given that a way can be found how it > degrades gracefully on the different/not-so-flexible shared library > systems mentioned. That

Re: Alternate SONAME values

2005-07-08 Thread Keith Packard
On Fri, 2005-07-08 at 11:23 +0200, Simon Richter wrote: > Now I'm wondering whether it would make sense to add a switch to libtool > that makes it not install those two things, such as "-old-abi". I have to support two of these library versions as 'current' for other reasons, so applications need

Re: Alternate SONAME values

2005-07-08 Thread Keith Packard
On Fri, 2005-07-08 at 16:15 +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > Keith, could you confirm that this would be enough for your needs, when > given as install mode switch? Current idea would be to have it install > the first name from library_names only, do not delete the symlinks nor > create new ones,

Re: Alternate SONAME values

2005-07-08 Thread Keith Packard
On Fri, 2005-07-08 at 14:07 +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > No. If a DSO with matching SONAME is already mapped, ld.so is done. > If not, it searches for a library with a file name which matches the > SONAME, unless the SONAME -> file name pair is listed in > /etc/ld.so.cache. Sure, but the SONA

Re: Alternate SONAME values

2005-07-08 Thread Keith Packard
On Fri, 2005-07-08 at 14:10 +0530, Ganesan Rajagopal wrote: > >>>>> "Keith" == Keith Packard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > No, I haven't. I have little experience with these systems, so I don't > > even know if this scheme will wor

Re: Alternate SONAME values

2005-07-08 Thread Keith Packard
On Fri, 2005-07-08 at 08:31 +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > First, to stay with your GNU/Linux example, unless you also have > libXaw.so.6 as symlink, how will ld.so find your library (as installed > library; or alternatively as user-installed test version below $HOME)? The current ELF shared lib

Re: Alternate SONAME values

2005-07-07 Thread Keith Packard
On Fri, 2005-07-08 at 09:24 +0530, Ganesan Rajagopal wrote: > But libXaw.so. is the default behaviour for libtool. Are you > using -release instead of -version-info or -version-number? I think > -version-number will give you exactly what you need. I want the SONAME to be libXaw.so.6, but the fil

Re: Alternate SONAME values

2005-07-07 Thread Keith Packard
On Thu, 2005-07-07 at 15:53 +0530, Ganesan Rajagopal wrote: > >>>>> "Keith" == Keith Packard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > There is another way to solve the problem; we can change the SONAME in > > the versioned filename varients: >

Alternate SONAME values

2005-07-07 Thread Keith Packard
I'm building a weird set of libraries and would like libtool to help out a bit by providing some mechanism to modify the SONAME placed into the .so file. X has three versions of the Xaw library; version 6, 7 and 8 (cooresponding to the .so major version numbers, which are the same across all suppo

Re: max_cmd_len in ltmain.sh

2003-07-20 Thread Keith Packard
Around 21 o'clock on Jul 20, Albert Chin wrote: > It should be set in the generated 'libtool' program. Look at > AC_LIBTOOL_SYS_MAX_CMD_LEN in libtool.m4. Yes, it's nicely set in the generated 'libtool' program that gets installed on my machine, but I want to use 'libtoolize --force --copy' in

max_cmd_len in ltmain.sh

2003-07-20 Thread Keith Packard
I'm having trouble understanding how max_cmd_len is supposed to be getting initialized in ltmain.sh so I can use libtoolize with my package. libtool has a nice assignment, but ltmain.sh contains only references to this variable. Am I supposed to perform additional magic on the ltmain.sh that l

Re: Migrating existing libraries to libtool

2003-02-17 Thread Keith Packard
Around 23 o'clock on Feb 17, Robert Boehne wrote: > Tough problem you've got here, I don't really see a way > around it without a new versioning flag other than > creating a libX??.la file for the last version of a library > you're attempting to install (which may or may not work anyway). Thanks

Re: Migrating existing libraries to libtool

2003-02-17 Thread Keith Packard
Around 2 o'clock on Feb 18, Simon Richter wrote: > To remain binary compatible, it suffices to have the same major version, > as programs are expected to link against the .so. file. Which > file this actually symlinks to is irrelevant. So in fact you start off > using -version-info :0:0 and then

Migrating existing libraries to libtool

2003-02-17 Thread Keith Packard
I maintain a few X libraries and would like to see about transitioning them from imake to automake. The stumbling block is that I cannot change the library version numbers across this transition on any operating system. libtool makes this transition system dependent as I must compute the corr