Missing .so in .la file

2004-08-16 Thread Grzegorz Jakacki
Hi, This is a fragment of some libocc_mop.la file created by libtool 1.5.6: # The name that we can dlopen(3). dlname='libocc_mop.0' # Names of this library. library_names='libocc_mop.0.0.0 libocc_mop.0 libocc_mop' # The name of the static archive.

Re: GNU Libtool 1.5.8 released.

2004-08-16 Thread Gary V. Vaughan
Hi Bob, Joe, libtoolers: Bob Friesenhahn wrote: It seems that the only valid test to determine the default output architecture is to compile code and then use 'file' or some other utility to determine the architecture. In order to produce multilib output, libtool would need to know the

Re: Missing .so in .la file

2004-08-16 Thread Bob Friesenhahn
Does 'make install' result in shared libraries with the .so part similarly missing from their names? I ran across a package recently (using libtool) that had this problem under Solaris. Regenerating the build with local auto* tools solved the problem, but if the problem occurs for more than