Hi,
I would like to have my package create a single static library and a
single program by default.
However, if the user does --enable-tcl-extension, then I would like to
create a shared library using libtool.
Can I do something in configure.in that says
if ..
AM_LIBTOOL
fi;
or is thi
Bob Rossi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I would like to have my package create a single static library and a
> single program by default.
> However, if the user does --enable-tcl-extension, then I would like to
> create a shared library using libtool.
> Can I do something in configure.in that sa
* Bob Rossi wrote on Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 04:00:03AM CEST:
>
> Can I do something in configure.in that says
> if ..
> AM_LIBTOOL
> fi;
>
> or is this invalid?
This is invalid and will break at unfortunate places.
Use AC_PROG_LIBTOOL unconditionally (who told you to name it
AM_LIBTOOL?)
On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 09:09:19AM +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * Bob Rossi wrote on Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 04:00:03AM CEST:
> >
> > Can I do something in configure.in that says
> > if ..
> > AM_LIBTOOL
> > fi;
> >
> > or is this invalid?
>
> This is invalid and will break at unfortun
On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 09:05:02PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Bob Rossi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I would like to have my package create a single static library and a
> > single program by default.
>
> > However, if the user does --enable-tcl-extension, then I would like to
> > create a
* Bob Rossi wrote on Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 12:15:49PM CEST:
> On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 09:09:19AM +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > * Bob Rossi wrote on Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 04:00:03AM CEST:
> > >
> > > Can I do something in configure.in that says
> > > if ..
> > > AM_LIBTOOL
> > > fi;
> >
On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 05:50:41PM +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * Bob Rossi wrote on Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 12:15:49PM CEST:
> > On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 09:09:19AM +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > > * Bob Rossi wrote on Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 04:00:03AM CEST:
> > > >
> > > > Can I do something in
* Bob Rossi wrote on Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 06:18:54PM CEST:
>
> OK, so is the only safe way to do this to have 2 configure.in scripts?
> One that uses AC_PROG_LIBTOOL and one that doesn't?
I don't see why that would be necessary. Unless you need to avoid the
Automake adjustments it does for Libto
On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 06:34:59PM +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * Bob Rossi wrote on Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 06:18:54PM CEST:
> >
> > OK, so is the only safe way to do this to have 2 configure.in scripts?
> > One that uses AC_PROG_LIBTOOL and one that doesn't?
>
> I don't see why that would be ne
Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Bob Rossi wrote on Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 06:18:54PM CEST:
>> OK, so is the only safe way to do this to have 2 configure.in scripts?
>> One that uses AC_PROG_LIBTOOL and one that doesn't?
> I don't see why that would be necessary. Unless you need to
Hi Russ,
* Russ Allbery wrote on Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 11:41:39PM CEST:
>
> Libtool is painfully, *painfully* slow,
Yes. I know.
> which is why use of it is
> conditional in INN. The approach that we're using required figuring out
> what macros to call first, but it works well enough that I'll
Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Russ Allbery wrote on Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 11:41:39PM CEST:
>> which is why use of it is conditional in INN. The approach that we're
>> using required figuring out what macros to call first, but it works
>> well enough that I'll keep using it until
Ed Hartnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Sorry, I don't follow here.
> Firstly, I recently switched a large package to libtool, and it didn't
> seem to slow down the build all that much. It's true that it makes the
> build output harder to read, but that's no big deal.
On a modern Linux box wit
> > Or could I use m4 to bring in the macro definition or not, instead of
> > relying on the sh code?
>
> Yes, that would help around the AC_REQUIREd-macros problem.
>
> This is exactly the effect of AS_IF, only that, unfortunately the AS_IF
> of Autoconf-2.59 has been m4_define'd and not AC_DEFU
* Bob Rossi wrote on Tue, May 02, 2006 at 04:03:27AM CEST:
> >
> > AC_DEFINE([br_CHOOSE_LIBBUILD],
> > [if $condition; then
> > AC_PROG_LIBTOOL
> > fi])
> >
> > and then invoke br_CHOOSE_LIBBUILD later; that will ensure required
> > macros are expanded before that.
>
> Would you mind quicly ex
On Mon, 1 May 2006, Bob Rossi wrote:
Would you mind quicly explaining how autoconf works? Meaning what are
the steps taken that generate a configure.sh script?
Don't be needlessly confused by the m4 "gibberish" which is often
posted here. It is not necessary to understand such "gibberish" in
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> * Bob Rossi wrote on Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 06:18:54PM CEST:
>
>>> OK, so is the only safe way to do this to have 2 configure.in scripts?
>>> One that uses AC_PROG_LIBTOOL and one that doesn't?
>
>> I don't see
On Mon, May 01, 2006 at 09:39:04PM -0500, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> On Mon, 1 May 2006, Bob Rossi wrote:
> >
> >Would you mind quicly explaining how autoconf works? Meaning what are
> >the steps taken that generate a configure.sh script?
>
> Don't be needlessly confused by the m4 "gibberish" which
18 matches
Mail list logo
