Re: GNU Libtool 2.4 released [stable]

[Alon Bar-Lev]

On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 1:19 PM, Paolo Bonzini <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> On 09/27/2010 03:41 PM, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
>>
>> ‎Thanks for the explanation!
>>
>> On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 7:17 AM, Ralf Wildenhues<address@hidden>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Also, why not take the value of the sysroot from the DESTDIR automake 
>>>> variable?
>>>
>>> Because we know DESTDIR far too late, only at 'make install' time and
>>> not yet at the time we link against dependent libraries (that may
>>> already be installed below the sysroot).
>>
>> But you do relink the libraries when 'make install' is executed.
>> So why not relink it with proper sysroot?
>
> Because if you removed sysroot syntax upon "make install", you would not be 
> able to link future code with the newly-installed library.
>
> Note that it's perfectly possible to use .la files on the final system that 
> didn't go through "libtool --mode=finish", as long as all the packages you 
> compile are upgraded to Libtool 2.4 (and IIUC, cygwin's packaging system for 
> example is already re-libtoolizing each package, so it's not that hard to do 
> this).
>
> Paolo

I wanted to see the process this way...

export SYSROOT=/tmp/root1

package1: ./configure
package1: make install DESTDIR=/tmp/root1

package2: ./configure
package2: make install DESTDIR=/tmp/root2

1. No need to update existing builds, adding --with-sysroot to all
configure statements is harder.

2. You can assume DESTDIR is base root (own sysroot), and while
linking and all take the SYSROOT environment as base. So I don't
really understand the '=' in the .la files. You can always add the
SYSROOT prefix to everything in .la if it resides within the SYSROOT.

Alon