Albert Chin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Please post it to this list. I tried your example on a sample project
> here and it seemed OK. I don't have a patch for libtool though. If I
> have time, I'll try to do it but time is scarce these days.
Okay, here it is.
foobar.tar.gz
Description: fo
On Mon, May 27, 2002 at 10:19:53AM +0200, Schleicher Ralph (LLI) wrote:
> Albert Chin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Hmm, this seems like a positive. Does it have any side affects? Have
> > you made this change and run the test suite against it?
>
> I don't think it has any side effects. I t
Albert Chin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hmm, this seems like a positive. Does it have any side affects? Have
> you made this change and run the test suite against it?
I don't think it has any side effects. I tried to patch Libtool but I
didn't manage it completely. Adding
for i in \$deplibs
"Boehne, Robert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Robert,
> I would expect Libtool to translate "libfoo.la" to "libfoo.${ext}"
> and to translate -lfoo into -lfoo, perhaps you should put "-lfoo"
> in _LDFLAGS instead of libfoo.la.
But "-lfoo" is not sufficient when linking against a non-installed
Ralph,
I would expect Libtool to translate "libfoo.la" to "libfoo.${ext}"
and to translate -lfoo into -lfoo, perhaps you should put "-lfoo"
in _LDFLAGS instead of libfoo.la.
IIRC, -lfoo -> -lfoo and libfoo.la -> libfoo.sl because sometimes
users one -lfoo, and sometimes users want libfoo.sl.
But
ltmain.sh (GNU libtool) 1.4.2 (1.922.2.54 2001/09/11 03:33:37)
Hi,
I encountered a problem with Libtool libraries on HP-UX.
Consider the following (simplified) Makefile.am:
lib_LTLIBRARIES = libfoo.la libbar.la
libfoo_la_SOURCES = foo.c
libbar_la_SOURCES = bar.c
libbar_la_LDF
