[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: autotools not suited to proprietary development?
From: |
Ryan McDougall |
Subject: |
Re: autotools not suited to proprietary development? |
Date: |
Thu, 05 Oct 2006 17:39:06 +0900 |
On Wed, 2006-10-04 at 21:33 -0700, Andre Stechert wrote:
> On Oct 4, 2006, at 8:55 PM, Ryan McDougall wrote:
>
> > However the problem remains that Im at a bit of a loss how to ship a
> > shared .SO library easily. If I build on my machine (or a set of
> > supported build machines) then the build will link to my prefix (lets
> > say /usr/lib) and the end user has no choice where he wants to
> > place his
> > library?
>
> This can be hard to do portably but not because of the autotools. I
> think it
> boils down to two kinds of problems:
>
> 1) If your build is libtoolized, then you may end up with -rpath
> references
> in your .la files (Google for "debian rpath" to get a sense of the
> drama that's
> followed this issue over the years). If you're just distributing
> the .so's, then
> this isn't so much of a problem, as you can fix it by having your
> users install
> the .so wherever they want, but they have to reference by augmenting
> their
> LD_LIBRARY_PATH appropriately.
> In summary, if you're careful about it, you can do exactly what you
> propose.
>
> Cheers,
> Andre
Apologies if this is starting to wander off course, but Im really trying
to learn all this stuff so I can port more programs to linux, so I hope
you dont mind being the ones to give me a clue but ...
should I understand that (for example) when redhat/debian build lets say
libc for packaging as a binary, they download a tarball and do a
complicated form
'./configure --prefix=/usr && make && make install' on a bare machine
without any libc, then tar up the result for an RPM or DEB?
I have looked briefly how to make RPMs, but Ive got some missing pieces
here...
Im well aware this is getting offtopic, so if possible could you spare a
clue and a link to a place where I can research the problem more myself?
Cheers,
Re: autotools not suited to proprietary development?, David Fang, 2006/10/05
Re: autotools not suited to proprietary development?, Warren Young, 2006/10/06