David and Peter,
On 2005 Jan 6 , at 11.58, Peter W. Draper wrote:
> during the link stage, which is now managed by libtool, so that's out
> of
> our hands. Having cyclic dependencies in the linking stage is seen as
> bad
> style and a possible portability problem, so libtool doesn't try to
> support them.
I think I would lay money on this being a problem at some point, and if
it hasn't been a problem yet on OSX, I'd guess that was a coincidence
(I may have mentioned that OSX is uncharitable towards repeated library
symbols). Is there any way that -- as Peter suggests -- the cyclic
problem can be resolved?
> So we either need to cure the cyclic problem, or create .la files that
> point at the softlinks, not the original files, as a straight copy
> does.
> It's also possible that not linking the .la files might work (so ld can
> see the .a and .so softlinks directly).
As you mention elsewhere in this thread, there's no documentation for
.la files -- they're presumably intended to be opaque -- however they
are just shell scripts which set a bunch of variables, so the
shudder-inducing sed hack might work.
See you,
Norman
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Norman Gray : Physics & Astronomy, Glasgow University, UK
http://www.astro.gla.ac.uk/users/norman/ : www.starlink.ac.uk
|