ld --rpath problem using libtool

2008-01-07 Thread Richard Hacker
Hi all, I'm experiencing some trouble using libtool inside the GNU autotools collection. My compiled objects do not find their shared libraries that are installed in non-standard library paths. I wrote a C++ library, called rtcom for argument's sake, and used SWIG to make it available as a Pyt

Re: ld --rpath problem using libtool

2008-01-08 Thread Richard Hacker
Hi Ralf, Attached are the two logs that you have requested. I hope this helps you further. At least my assumption that libtool should get a library's path information from libx.la is not wrong. ;) Sorry for sending the logs unzipped previously. Many thanks for your help. - Richard config.lo

Re: ld --rpath problem using libtool

2008-01-09 Thread Richard Hacker
Hi Ralf, On Wednesday 09 January 2008 07:48, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > I think the issue is this: libtool doesn't add a run path to > /opt/etherlab/lib because it thinks the runtime linker will already > search that by default. Your --config output shows that it is listed > ... > I'm wondering, i

Re: make -s

2008-01-10 Thread Richard Hacker
On Thursday 10 January 2008 08:29, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > For whatever output is left done by libtool I expect that whoever want's > it silenced hard enough will have enough motivation to send a patch to > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. That shouldn't bee too difficult. As a hint, make adds 's' to the env

Re: make -s

2008-01-11 Thread Richard Hacker
On Thursday 10 January 2008 21:30, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > > If you want all tools silenced which are called by make, then I suggest > > > to simply use > > > make >/dev/null || make > > > > well, we're after the automatic output going away, not intended output. > > So what's intended output?

Re: make -s

2008-01-14 Thread Richard Hacker
On Sunday 13 January 2008 17:46, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > * Richard Hacker wrote on Fri, Jan 11, 2008 at 01:21:50PM CET: > > However, libtool is responsible for parsing *make's *FLAGS > > Now, this contradicts your statement (*) above, no? Oppps, my mistake. Sorry for confu