Re: SUMMARY: Re: shared library -dev package naming proposal
On 29-Jul-05, 08:50 (CDT), GOMBAS Gabor <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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
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.
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