* Ralf Wildenhues wrote on Thu, Oct 13, 2005 at 02:17:20PM CEST:
>
> Hacky test, exposes on systems where LTDL_DLOPEN_DEPLIBS is defined:
>
> sed 's,foo1,foo2' foo1.la >foo2.la
Erm: 's,foo1,foo2,g'.
> ./mdemo ./foo2.la # file not found error
> ./mdemo foo2.la # assertion
Sorry
* Peter O'Gorman wrote on Thu, Oct 13, 2005 at 06:52:00AM CEST:
> Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> >
> >Does a simple test expose this on Tru64? Try something like adding a
> >call to mdemo-exec that tries
> > ( cd mdemo && ./mdemo foo1.la libfoo2.la )
> >(i.e., without path) and if this exposes it, plea
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Hi Peter,
Does a simple test expose this on Tru64? Try something like adding a
call to mdemo-exec that tries
( cd mdemo && ./mdemo foo1.la libfoo2.la )
(i.e., without path) and if this exposes it, please commit along with
it. (It doesn't expose it on GNU/Linux.)
No,
Hi Peter,
* Peter O'Gorman wrote on Wed, Oct 12, 2005 at 03:58:29PM CEST:
> Hi,
> I just spent the last several hours trying to find out why a package was
> not building for me on Tru64 4.0. Turns out to have been a ltdl bug or two.
> I was hitting a libltdl assert (assertion dirname) and when I
Hi,
I just spent the last several hours trying to find out why a package was not
building for me on Tru64 4.0. Turns out to have been a ltdl bug or two. I
was hitting a libltdl assert (assertion dirname) and when I figured out why,
I patched ltdl to check that dir was set before calling
tryall
