[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: libtool fails with uninstalled frameworks and the -F flag
From: |
Michael C. Grant |
Subject: |
Re: libtool fails with uninstalled frameworks and the -F flag |
Date: |
Fri, 31 Jan 2014 23:06:44 +0000 |
Gary,
Sorry for the delay. I think I'm going to have to give up on this one. I'm
afraid my understanding of libtool internals as well as Darwin -framework
idiosyncracies are insufficient to the task.
Fortunately, the issue we were having with Octave compilation has been resolved
by other means (actually by forcing link-all-dependencies in libtool whenever
an uninstalled framework is encountered).
Feel free to close this for now. If I get ambitious and figure things out more
fully I will take another crack at it.
On Jan 13, 2014, at 8:50 PM, Gary V. Vaughan <address@hidden> wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
> [moved to libtool-patches list]
>
> On Jan 14, 2014, at 11:45 AM, Michael C. Grant <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>> I'm trying to compile GNU Octave and its new Qt GUI on a Mac OSX with
>> Homebrew. Homebrew installs the Qt frameworks in
>> /usr/local/Cellar/qt/4.8.5/lib, so after some fiddling with the configure
>> script I get this:
>>
>> QT_LDFLAGS=-F/usr/local/Cellar/qt/4.8.5/lib
>> QT_LIBS=-framework QtCore -framework QtGui -framework QtNetwork
>>
>> However, the libtool script does not handle the -F argument through
>> properly, so it is stripped out of the linking process.
>>
>> I created the following patch for the generated libtool script, which causes
>> libtool to treat -F exactly like it treats -L. This seems to do the trick.
>>
>> I did notice that scanning through past discussions that this has come up a
>> couple of times, but there is reluctance to provide full support for -F for
>> some reason. Perhaps the relative simplicity of this patch would convince
>> you to reconsider. I'm also discussing this with the Homebrew folks to see
>> if they would consider including in their formula, but they do prefer not to
>> use patches if they can help it.
>
> Thanks for the patch. Sorry I didn't reply to your earlier emails - I marked
> them for further attention, but didn't make the time to actually go back and
> respond.
>
> My main worry is whether that changing libtool's treatment of -F is going to
> do something unexpected on another platform. That said, apart from your
> conflating of -L and -F in the case branches with the patch you sent, I'm
> open to including it in the upcoming release if you don't mind reworking it a
> little?
>
> Please keep the -L and -F branches separate, factoring the branch bodies into
> a shell function if necessary to prevent cut-n-pasting blocks of code between
> the two. Bonus points if you could also make -F behave as before on all
> platforms but *-darwin*.
>
> If you have github, I keep a mirror of libtool at
> http://github.com/gvvaughan/GNU-libtool, so that might be a more convenient
> way for you to submit a pull request than dropping patch attachments into the
> mailing list.
>
> I have a couple of small fixes of my own that I need to polish and push, and
> then I'll do another round of platform testing to nail down what else is a
> show-stopper for a final pre-release.
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Gary V. Vaughan (gary AT gnu DOT org)