Re: [Lpr-discuss] Re: build environment

[James A. <ja...@an...>]

Danek Duvall <dd...@en...> writes:

> On Thu, May 31, 2001 at 06:56:59PM -0700, Ben Woodard wrote:
> 
> > Wow it sounds like you are having lots of problems. 
> 
> :)  Part of the difference for us is that we're doing most of our work on
> Solaris, so there's tons of stuff that blows up.  Heck, even Norm's code in
> your tree doesn't compile on Solaris.  <grin>

 Well, you're probably the best people to port it to Solaris :)

> > ben@gelfling:~/gnulpr/bens_dev_branch$ libtool --version
> > ltmain.sh (GNU libtool) 1.3.3 (1.385.2.181 1999/07/02 15:49:11)
> 
> Yeah -- Norm wasn't able to get inter-library dependencies working right
> with libtool prior to 1.4.  And, surprise surprise, the NEWS file for
> libtool 1.4 says that that stuff was introduced in the development versions
> leading to 1.4.

 By inter-library dependencies do you mean that libppd isn't linked
against libglib (for example) or problems in the libppd.la file for
when stuff is linked against later ?

> So -- we're looking at trying to get rid of libtool for our code entirely.
> It may not be possible, but I think we all hate it enough that we're
> willing to expend some effort in at least trying to come up with another,
> if not better, mousetrap.  Do y'all have any feelings on the matter?

 Although I do feel your pain with libtool, as whenever I've needed to
pass weird options to the linker libtool just got in the way and
thought it knew best. I think if we dropped it we'd probably end up
re-writting most of it again, badly. And libtool is becoming more or
less the universal for compiling shared libraries.
 The first thing I'd try is look at how glib/gtk/gnome build on
Solaris as that should use libtool and have inter-lib dependancies
working.

-- 
# James Antill -- ja...@an...
:0:
* ^From: .*james@and\.org
/dev/null