Do you ever have the problem that the libtool re-linker finds the old
version of the thing you are building from /usr/lib before it finds the
BUILDROOT one in /tmp/build-root/usr/lib?
That's my fear
pj
Tim Mooney wrote:
In regard to: How is relinking with DESTDIR != installdir in newish...:
Dear GNU !
Is there a precompiled version of libtool for HP-UX 11 that I can simply
download.
Thank you.
Ion Filotti [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Nova Software Labs - N.S.L.
8, rue de Hanovre
75002 Paris
France
Web: www.NovaSoftwareLabs.com www.nsl.fr
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Telephone: +33 1 58 18 61
A project wishes to upgrade to use libtool to build shared libraries
but maintain compatibility with the old library versioning scheme. Is
-version-info and -release *it* for how to tell libtool to handle
library versions?
Old (on Redhat Linux):
libfontconfig.so -> libfontconfig.so.1
libfontco
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
Keith,
> 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.
To remain binary compatible, it suffices to have the same maj
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
Ok, looks reasonable to me, Approved with this
ChangLog entry:
2003-02-17 Allan Sandfeld Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* libtool.m4: Intel icc fixups for version 7.0.
Thanks!
Robert
Allan Sandfeld Jensen wrote:
>
> Hi Robert
>
> Here's an update on my icc-patch
>
> I have checked how
Keith,
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).
I would say that a patch to add this flag should warn the u
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
