Re: use of libtool for linking executables - rpath problem

2001-11-19 Thread Paul Davis
>> pkg-config doesn't do that. its an almost impossible task unless you > >Are you talking about some new tool that I had not previously heard >about or are you talking about a script like the >'/usr/local/bin/gnome-config' I see on my system? its a replacement for *all* such scripts. its a C p

Re: use of libtool for linking executables - rpath problem

2001-11-19 Thread Paul Davis
>What is needed is a "database" which acts as a registry of installed >packages. This would be updatable by 'make install' as well as binary >packaging tools. all of GNOME is now using pkg-config for this purpose. > A tool would be provided to formulate the optimum >-I, -L, a

Re: use of libtool for linking executables - rpath problem

2001-11-19 Thread Paul Davis
>> The 7th is to have the shared library use pkg-config, allowing other >> tools to find out about it without relying on the linker configuration. >> Its much cleaner than any of the other choices you mention, and >> thankfully, has nothing to do with libtool (phew!) > >Can you please elaborate mo

Re: use of libtool for linking executables - rpath problem

2001-11-19 Thread Paul Davis
>I can see six possible approaches: The 7th is to have the shared library use pkg-config, allowing other tools to find out about it without relying on the linker configuration. Its much cleaner than any of the other choices you mention, and thankfully, has nothing to do with libtool (phew!) --p

Re: ltdl.c thinks it's psychic (another SEGFAULT bug).

2001-11-11 Thread Paul Davis
>> > > what is any of this for in the first place? >> > >> >You mean why do we allos someone to define lt_dlmalloc, lt_dlrealloc, >> >and lt_dlfree? I don't know :) >> >> yes, thats precisely what i mean. what problem is this attempting to >> solve? some bizarre platform where ltdl.c can't call ma

Re: ltdl.c thinks it's psychic (another SEGFAULT bug).

2001-11-10 Thread Paul Davis
>> what is any of this for in the first place? > >You mean why do we allos someone to define lt_dlmalloc, lt_dlrealloc, >and lt_dlfree? I don't know :) yes, thats precisely what i mean. what problem is this attempting to solve? some bizarre platform where ltdl.c can't call malloc()? --p ___

Re: ltdl.c thinks it's psychic (another SEGFAULT bug).

2001-11-10 Thread Paul Davis
>Because ltdl.h already states that libltdl relies on a featureful >realloc, let's just set lt_dlrealloc = realloc and test for a >featureful realloc in ltdl.m4. Let's recommend that if anyone changes >at least one of lt_dlmalloc, lt_dlrealloc, or lt_dlfree, then they >should also change them all.