Re: [Fink-devel] .so vs .dylib

2006-06-01 Thread David Reiser
On Jun 1, 2006, at 8:50 AM, Peter O'Gorman wrote: > On Thu, 2006-06-01 at 01:15 -0400, David Reiser wrote: > >> no soap. I wonder if ${QOF_LIBS} is 'providing' -lfoo >> > > Heh, I bet they still ahve a configure check for darwin that does a > sed > on the generated libtool script to always buil

Re: [Fink-devel] .so vs .dylib

2006-06-01 Thread Peter O'Gorman
On Thu, 2006-06-01 at 01:15 -0400, David Reiser wrote: > no soap. I wonder if ${QOF_LIBS} is 'providing' -lfoo > Heh, I bet they still ahve a configure check for darwin that does a sed on the generated libtool script to always build dylibs. I added that years ago, and it always worked because I

Re: [Fink-devel] .so vs .dylib

2006-05-31 Thread David Reiser
On Jun 1, 2006, at 12:32 AM, Peter O'Gorman wrote: > On Wed, 2006-05-31 at 23:50 -0400, David Reiser wrote: >> On May 31, 2006, at 7:20 PM, Peter O'Gorman wrote: >> >> [snip] >>> gnucash-1.9 probably still uses libltdl to open modules, doesn't it? >>> >>> Peter >> >> The module of immediate inter

Re: [Fink-devel] .so vs .dylib

2006-05-31 Thread Peter O'Gorman
On Wed, 2006-05-31 at 23:50 -0400, David Reiser wrote: > On May 31, 2006, at 7:20 PM, Peter O'Gorman wrote: > > [snip] > > gnucash-1.9 probably still uses libltdl to open modules, doesn't it? > > > > Peter > > The module of immediate interest is loaded by gmodule. Ensure that the Makefile.am for

Re: [Fink-devel] .so vs .dylib

2006-05-31 Thread David Reiser
On May 31, 2006, at 7:20 PM, Peter O'Gorman wrote: [snip] > gnucash-1.9 probably still uses libltdl to open modules, doesn't it? > > Peter The module of immediate interest is loaded by gmodule. -- David Reiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Fink-devel mailin

Re: [Fink-devel] .so vs .dylib

2006-05-31 Thread David Reiser
On May 31, 2006, at 7:20 PM, Peter O'Gorman wrote: > On Wed, 2006-05-31 at 09:25 -0400, David Reiser wrote: >> This isn't necessarily a fink question, but it might get to be... >> >> A change was made in gnucash 1.9.7 where the program looks to load >> a .so module, but the compiler/linker only c

Re: [Fink-devel] .so vs .dylib

2006-05-31 Thread Peter O'Gorman
On Wed, 2006-05-31 at 09:25 -0400, David Reiser wrote: > This isn't necessarily a fink question, but it might get to be... > > A change was made in gnucash 1.9.7 where the program looks to load > a .so module, but the compiler/linker only created .dylib files. The > object in question is a Mac

Re: [Fink-devel] .so vs .dylib

2006-05-31 Thread David R. Morrison
Another useful fact, not mentioned on that page: these days, libtool and its autoconf friends can automatically name bundles as .so files if they are set up properly. Perhaps Peter O'Gorman can give some advice on this. -- Dave On May 31, 2006, at 3:05 PM, David Reiser wrote: > Thank

Re: [Fink-devel] .so vs .dylib

2006-05-31 Thread David Reiser
Thank you very much. That's what I needed to get started. The fog is slowly lifting. Someday I'll really understand... Dave On May 31, 2006, at 4:28 PM, Daniel Macks wrote: > On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 09:25:50AM -0400, David Reiser wrote: >> This isn't necessarily a fink question, but it might ge

Re: [Fink-devel] .so vs .dylib

2006-05-31 Thread Daniel Macks
On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 09:25:50AM -0400, David Reiser wrote: > This isn't necessarily a fink question, but it might get to be... > > A change was made in gnucash 1.9.7 where the program looks to load > a .so module, but the compiler/linker only created .dylib files. The > object in question i

[Fink-devel] .so vs .dylib

2006-05-31 Thread David Reiser
This isn't necessarily a fink question, but it might get to be... A change was made in gnucash 1.9.7 where the program looks to load a .so module, but the compiler/linker only created .dylib files. The object in question is a Mach bundle. Creating a symlink x.so -> x.dylib does allow everyt