Hi Kean, * Kean Johnston wrote on Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 10:35:09PM CET: > >The way I understand your intentions, it should suffice if you can > >decide at configure time about the absoluteness of the paths (rather > >than at link time). So you could do this instead: > > > > if test -z "$SCOABSPATH"; then
> >which would be at least a lot more readable. > Sure, I can do that, I'm open for compromise :) The only reason > I did it the way it currently stands is it allows me to do the > following: > > ./configure > make install > make clean > SCOABSPATH=1 make install DESTDIR=/whatever I know. You could even `find . -name \*.la | xargs rm' to avoid the `make clean'. > with no intervening re-running of configure in between. In fact > the SCOABSPATH thing as it currently stands used to look a great > deal neater. Perhaps this would be more acceptable (I suspect it > might), so that I can preserve the above behaviour (line split > by mailer, not in script): > > archive_cmds='$CC -shared > ${wl},-h${SCOABSPATH:+${install_libdir}/}$soname -o $lib > $libobjs $deplibs $compiler_flags' > > It has the exact same effect, but looks a *great* deal cleaner. > In fact, before I submitted the patch thats how it looked. I > changed it to the current mechanism becuase I thought it made > it more obvious what was happening. But I can see your point > about it being ugly as sin. Well, this is better than your previous version. Still, innocent users happening to compile a package see the SCOABSPATH, and this is what bugs me (yes, I know #users <= 2). > If even that is too ugly for you, then I guess I can live with > the pain of having to re-run configure to enable the absolute > path stuff, but I'm really hoping not :) Since this is really for a dying libtool branch, what the heck, repost as above. At least it would match your usage pattern with -absolute-soname, too. > >about moving the hack forward if that doesn't work out). At the first > >occurrence of SCOABSPATH, please add a comment that this thingy will not > >be supported, and that it breaks testing of uninstalled libraries. > I can certainly do that. Is there a suitable place in the doc > for platform specific quirks that I can document it more > eloquently and obviously too? I had hoped doc/notes.texi (CVS HEAD) to be for platform specific questions, but: I definitely don't want to see it in there. I don't want it prominently documented; just people that find it anyway should also be able to find the comment "do not rely on this". Cheers, Ralf