Well, thanks, but again, LD_LIBRARY_PATH isn't working for me on aix 4.3.2.
When it seems to work it is only a coincidence, the load succeeds when the
libMagick.so shared lib is fortuitously in one of the directories in dxexec's
header.
Pete

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> You need LD_LIBRARY_PATH pointing to where the shared IM is.
> Also, with IM 5.1 you need to have DELEGATE_PATH pointing to where your
> delegates.mgk file is located, which indicates what libraries you are
> using, how various formats are handled, etc.
>
> As a side note, TMPDIR points to where IM makes scratch files.  The default
> on AIX is /tmp, /usr/tmp on Solaris, c:\temp on NT, etc...
>
> --------------------------
> Lloyd A. Treinish
> Visual Analysis
> IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center
> P. O. Box 704
> Yorktown Heights, NY 10598
> 914-784-5038 (voice)
> 914-784-7667 (facsimile)
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.research.ibm.com/people/l/lloydt/
>
> Peter Daniel Kirchner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>@opendx.watson.ibm.com on
> 01/13/2000 11:17:59 AM
>
> Please respond to opendx2-dev@lists.berlios.de
>
> Sent by:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> To:   opendx2-dev@lists.berlios.de
> cc:
> Subject:  Re: [opendx-dev] javadx shareable libraries
>
> I've found that on AIX 4.3.2 at least, for libMagick at least that I've got
> to have
> the shared lib in one of the directories defined at *link time*.  These
> dirs can be
> found in the dxexec header ( view on aix with dump -H) which includes
> defaults as
> well as directories specified by -L during the link.  If the lib is
> elsewhere, dx
> won't run and the error is "could not load library libMagick.a ".  Before
> you leap
> on the obvious:  LIBPATH and LD_LIBRARY_PATH seem to have no beneficial
> effect.
> Anyone know what is going on here?
>
> Rick Scott wrote:
>
> > I vote with trying to go with libtool. Of course that is assuming that I
> have a
> > vote :) I realize that getting things to work "the libtool way" may not
> be easy
> > at first, but once you get it going, the routine maintainance on various
> > platforms is reduced. I started off trying to tweak Makefiles by hand for
> > various platforms, moved on to Imake, which was never really sucessfull
> since
> > most installations never had working Imake installations. From there I
> moved
> > into autoconf/automake, which was great for making programs, but when it
> came
> > to shared libraries was still a nightmare. If you can live with libtools
> rules,
> > you open up a whole slew of platforms that you could never test for
> yourself.
> > If the libtool folks know anything, they know how to make a library on
> more
> > platforms than the average person........
> >
> > Anyway, enough of this, I have a tarball to roll, and I still may have to
> > justify why I broke a code freeze to get David's "conveince" translations
> > working..... So much to do, so little time........
> >
> > On 12-Jan-00 at 21:11, David Thompson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > I just wanted to give everyone a heads up if they plan on dealing with
> > > JavaDX. Since JavaDX must link against shared libraries at runtime, if
> > > you have format such as netcdf compiling in -- that are not made as
> > > shareable libraries, javadx is going to have problems.
> > >
> > > The solution? Not quite sure yet. I'm not positive if all of the format
> > > libraries can be built as shareable or not. I've been messing around
> > > with libtool, but there are some problems dealing with it as well. It
> > > may be time to do a brainstorming session of how to reorganize the
> > > libraries. Creating shared and static versions of each. Libtool does
> > > have some excellent features but they assume that you have your project
> > > set up a specific way.
> > >
> > > Suhaib, since I haven't compiled stuff for Windows, what is your take
> on
> > > using libtool? Does it solve or create problems?
> > >
> > > I also have some questions that I've fired off to the libtool group in
> > > terms of our loadable modules. That is where I'm really stuck right
> now,
> > > and we'll see if libtool can accomodate for them.
> > >
> > > David

Reply via email to