 |
 |
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