tags 11863 - moreinfo thanks On 07/05/2012 08:19 AM, Gary V. Vaughan wrote: > Hi Reuben, > > On 5 Jul 2012, at 05:39, Reuben Thomas wrote: >> On 4 July 2012 23:35, Stefano Lattarini <stefano.lattar...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> tags 11863 + moreinfo >>> thanks >>> >>> On 07/04/2012 10:43 PM, Reuben Thomas wrote: >>>> I have a library that I want to build just for tests. Hence, I add it >>>> to check_LTLIBRARIES. It's a plugin, so I want the .so (or .dll or >>>> whatever) to be built, but it isn't! >>>> >>> It isn't built when you run "make check"? >> >> The library is built, but no .so. > > check_LTLIBRARIES works somewhat like noinst_LTLIBRARIES, in that Automake > instructs libtool to build a convenience archive by default in both cases > (a convenience archive being a static archive of pic objects). > > Arguably that's not the right thing for check_LTLIBRARIES, for exactly the > reasons you have been tripped up by here. And I'd be in favour of changing > the semantics of check_LTLIBRARIES accordingly - libltdl based module > loaders will continue to cope just fine because the .la file is examined > to determine how to link and load the module. > I'll gladly accept a patch in this direction, if you, as a libtool maintainer, think it would offer better semantics.
> Currently the best way to tell Automake to only build a libtool library > for `make check' without installing it, but at the same time to tell libtool > not to make a convenience archive is: > > check_LTLIBRARIES += tests/libalientest.la > > tests_libalientest_la_LDFLAGS = -module -avoid-version -rpath /dev/null > > The -rpath argument tells libtool that this is not a convenience archive. > The parameter can be anything, because Automake will not install a > check_LTLIBRARIES object anyway, but /dev/null makes it clearer that we'r > doing something a bit odd here. > > Cheers, Regards, Stefano