Hans, Yes, the project is very uncommon, and I agree the lib should be inside the project directory structure, but I had this issue a long long time ago when working on an embedded system that shared some libraries between host and target machine. I don't know if it's even a bug or just an unsupported condition that leads to unexpected results. Regards, Fabrizio
On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:24 PM Hans-Bernhard Bröker <hbbroe...@t-online.de> wrote: > Am 24.11.2020 um 21:09 schrieb Fabrizio Bertocci: > > Karl, > > It took me a while to remember what this issue was about... but I > > managed to get to my old reproducer. > > > > Ok, let me do one step back. The root problem is how do I ensure that > > paths passed through ./configure command line are valid when building > > source code under 'src' (for example). > > > > Look at the two attached .tar.gz. and un-tar the one called > > 'autotool-bug-rel.tar.gz'. > > In this project I have: > > /proj <- Here is where is the configure script > > /proj/src <- Here is the source code > > /lib <- This is another location of some lib I want to be > > able to define through ./configure > > > > Enter the `proj/src` and generate the configure script (./bootstrap.sh > > or just use autoreconf). > > How is that possible, given the configure script is supposed to be in > 'proj', not 'proj/src'? > > > Launch it with: > > ./configure --with-mylib=../lib > > Similar problem here. If you are where you say, in proj/src, that would > have to be ../../lib. > > So let's assume you meant to say that CWD is 'proj'. > > Well, I don't think it was ever meant to be possible that sources lie > outside the subtree configure itself is in. > > IOW, $(top_srcdir) is, by definition, the location of the ./configure > script, and it actually has to be what it says in the name: the _top_ > source directory for stuff built by that configure and its resulting > Makefile. > > The source tree should thus be > > proj configury here > proj/src sources here > proj/lib other sources here > > This may actually be related to my ancient bug entry #20699. >
