[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: FYI: use `&&' to separate commands in the untar process [libtool--re
From: |
Ralf Wildenhues |
Subject: |
Re: FYI: use `&&' to separate commands in the untar process [libtool--release--2.0--patch-56] |
Date: |
Fri, 11 Mar 2005 14:10:26 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.4.1i |
Hi Gary,
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 02:05:09PM CET:
> Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > | ( cd ../../libltdl && /bin/sh
> > "/mount/endor/wildenhu/download/software/libtool/write/libtool/config"/missing
> > --run tar chf - COPYING.LIB README Makefile.am Makefile.in configure.ac
> > configure ltdl.c ltdl.h lt_error.c libltdl/lt_error.h
> > libltdl/lt__private.h libltdl/lt__strl.h libltdl/lt_system.h lt__alloc.c
> > libltdl/lt__alloc.h libltdl/lt__glibc.h libltdl/lt__dirent.h slist.c
> > libltdl/slist.h lt_dlloader.c libltdl/lt_dlloader.h loaders/preopen.c
> > lt__dirent.c libltdl/lt__dirent.h lt__strl.c libltdl/lt__strl.h argz_.h
> > argz.c; ) | ( umask 0 && cd
> > /mount/endor/wildenhu/download/software/libtool/install/libtool-2.1/share/libtool-2.1a/libltdl
> > && /bin/sh
> > "/mount/endor/wildenhu/download/software/libtool/write/libtool/config"/missing
> > --run tar xf -; )
> > | tar: configure: Cannot stat: No such file or directory
> > | tar: Error exit delayed from previous errors
*snip*
> >
> > for the very simple reason that there is no `configure' in libltdl
> > because we eliminated configuring in there some time ago. So: Is
> > there an actual problem w.r.t. `&&' vs `;'? Did `make install'
> > work for you before? Why?
>
> Ah yes... D'oh! I *do* have a configure in libltdl atm...
Now, does that mean there was never a problem w.r.t. `&&' vs. `;'?
Sorry if I'm dense here.
> > OK to apply patch below?
>
> That was some of my next patch leaking out :-( Sorry about that.
>
> No need to apply your patch. We need to generate a configure script
> plus all the other config droppings to be installed to $pkgdatadir/libltdl,
> so that `libtoolize --ltdl' is useful to developers that don't use auto*.
I don't believe they can get by without auto*. But I'd be happy to be
proven wrong. (I'd demand a test for this, though, so that it does not
break again.)
One simple reason I don't think this can work: a package-toplevel
Makefile.in looks different from a non package-toplevel Makefile.in.
branch-1-5 creates a package-toplevel one in libltdl/, but newer Libtool
does not. We just can't use the same for both.
> I experimented with:
>
> i) bootstrapping with libtoolize (what we do currently)
> - but that requires auto* on the developers PATH
> ii) bootstrapping at make install time
> - the installer needs auto* on their PATH
> iii) bootstrapping at configure time
> - the installer still needs auto* on their PATH
> iv) copying the correct files from elsewhere in the source
> tree at install time
> - keeping the timestamps in synch to prevent rerunning auto* when
> the libtoolize --ltdl directory user first runs make is too brittle
>
> The only solution is to bootstrap libltdl from the bootstrap script. Even
> though libtool doesn't subconfigure, users of libtoolize --ltdl might want
> to.
While I don't understand what you meant with the different items above,
I'd be happy to see a patch that solves this. :)
Cheers,
Ralf