I try to compile a package which constructs three plugins during the
compilation.
An example of a typical Makefile.in for the plugin is:
PLUGIN=about.so
PLUGINDIR=${pkglibdir}
OBJECTS= about.o
LOBJECTS = $(OBJECTS:.o=.lo)
$(PLUGIN): $(OBJECTS)
$(LIBTOOL) --mode=link $(CC) -module
Hello,
I am warming up an old thread since one of my packages which I am
currently updating does exactly this:
Dave Vasilevsky Sun, 31 Jul 2005 04:28:33 -0700
On Jul 30, 2005, at 3:24 PM, Alexander Hansen wrote:
IMO we shouldn't have 'bar' provide 'foo' as well as have a
separate 'foo'
Michèle Garoche wrote:
I try to compile a package which constructs three plugins during the
compilation.
[]
$(PLUGIN): $(OBJECTS)
$(LIBTOOL) --mode=link $(CC) -module $(LIBS) -shared -o $@ $(LOBJECTS)
What happens if you remove the -shared from this line?
Libtool should recognize the
On 12/26/05, Jack Howarth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
..
ps Of course any package that uses glut has to pick one or another. They
can't just do a build depends glut|freeglut. That was my original goal
but it causes too many problems.
Good.
Pehaps some packages (especially libraries) could make
On 12/27/05, Bernd Kuemmerlen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
I am warming up an old thread since one of my packages which I am
currently updating does exactly this:
Dave Vasilevsky Sun, 31 Jul 2005 04:28:33 -0700
On Jul 30, 2005, at 3:24 PM, Alexander Hansen wrote:
IMO we shouldn't
On Mon, Dec 19, 2005 at 03:11:00PM -0500, Jack Howarth wrote:
If a package uses a patchscript rather than the automatic
patch application by fink, is there a recommended approach to
aborting the build if the patch is missing.
I just pulled together some other feature requests and bugs
