John Dennis wrote: > O.K. I give up. I've begun to truly despise libtool. There are too many > layers, obsurcifications, and poorly documented configuration options to > wrap my poor little brain around.
The libtool people must be *much* smarter than me, because I don't understand the code. My inclination at this point is to remove libltld entirely from the build. If your system doesn't have a functional dlopen(), it doesn't deserve to run FreeRADIUS. > I figured out that the reason why INSTALL_LTDL was never defined is > because it's defined deep inside the code which only gets turned on when > --with-system-libtool is not specified. > > However if one removes this option then linking fails because libtool > cannot find libltdl/libltdlc.la in the root of the build tree. What the heck is libltdlc.la? I don't see it on my system when the server is being built. > With the prior release (2.1.1) if I didn't define --with-system-libtool > then I would get an unresolved reference to > lt__PROGRAM__LTX_preloaded_symbols and I was told by our libtool > maintainer this is due to incompatibilities with the files included in > the tarball and the right solution is to specify --with-system-libtool > so that local files are used but if I do that then it barfs on > INSTALL_LTDL :-( > > Googling all of this did not provide much help other than discovering > I'm not the only who thinks libtool is too hard to use. If anyone truly > understands this stuff I'd love an explanation. libtool, libltdl, and autoconf are steaming masses of fertilizer. When FreeRADIUS started, I took a look at automake, and decided it was truly pointless. So we used gmake, and no one has ever really complained. If you look at the source code, there are a few references to WITHOUT_LIBLTLDL. It still requires some finalization, but it's been known to work (after some edits) on some systems. I might just spend some time removing ltldl from the system entirely. Alan DeKok. - List info/subscribe/unsubscribe? See http://www.freeradius.org/list/users.html