[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: SUMMARY: Re: shared library -dev package naming proposal

On 29-Jul-05, 08:50 (CDT), GOMBAS Gabor <gombasg@sztaki.hu> wrote: 
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2005 at 08:38:17AM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> Exercise: let's say I have an application that uses GSSAPI, and has to
> be able to be built statically. Requirements:
> - It should build with Heimdal's libgssapi
> - It should build with MIT's libgssapi
> - It should build with Globus GSI
> All these cases require a completely different set of dependant static
> libraries even though I'm only using the GSSAPI interface.
> With libtool, it's trivial, since all the information you need is
> already expressed in the .la files.

Unless they're borked, which seems to happen frequently.

> Care to explain a method that is
> - better than libtool
> - works already (the most important requirement being that Globus must
>   support it out-of-the-box)
> - not Debian-specific (only a minor set of the target machines runs
>   Debian)?

Makefile conditionals. Work on all platforms that support GNU make (i.e.
pretty much any of current interest), explicit, trivial to debug and

Of course, it requires you to actually *understand* what your software
dependencies are, but I don't see that as a bad thing.

> Well, I have used libtool on a couple of architectures and my opinion is
> that using libtool is still way more effective than re-inventing it over
> and over again. Yes, it has bugs (for example the AIX support is
> notoriously buggy), but they can be fixed just like any other software.

But apparently never are. Mostly because libtool is a horrendous,
incomprehensilbe shell script. And since AIX is one of our major
platforms, I spend *way* too much time fighting with it.


Steve Greenland
    The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating
    system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the
    world.       -- seen on the net

Reply to: