X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Message-ID: <4A7F098B.6030904@users.sourceforge.net> Date: Sun, 09 Aug 2009 12:38:19 -0500 From: "Yaakov (Cygwin/X)" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.1) Gecko/20090715 Thunderbird/3.0b3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: How to install-libLTLIBRARIES dll to bin? References: <6910a60907272310q54f29289l454117aff82afd5a AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <4A6ED94B DOT 8020003 AT gmail DOT com> <4A7E725C DOT 8010706 AT users DOT sourceforge DOT net> <4A7ED3C9 DOT 70700 AT cwilson DOT fastmail DOT fm> In-Reply-To: <4A7ED3C9.70700@cwilson.fastmail.fm> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com On 09/08/2009 08:48, Charles Wilson wrote: > Your patch does basically what Dave's horrible hack did, except his also > works if you're installing somewhere other than under THE libdir. His > patch "walks" up the directory tree from the .la file location, until it > finds a great-uncle ../../../bin directory. I considered such an approach, but what happens if you a prefix that doesn't yet exist on the system? AFAICS you would have the library in $my_new_prefix/lib and the DLL in /bin, which doesn't seem quite right. Shared libraries should be, and generally are, in or under $prefix/lib. The only way I see my patch not helping is if the library is in or under $libexecdir AND --libexecdir is set to something other than $prefix/lib (like the GNU default $prefix/libexec). But IMHO that would be a problem with the package in question. > This part is messy -- and unnecessary for the intended use case. In gcc, > all you need to do is explicitly modify the Makefile.am's to pass the > necessary option. You don't need to do anything to automake or > libtoolize, AFAICT. But how would you make a patch in a form that would be accepted upstream? > Which brings me to my question: Yaakov, what is the use case you have > for this functionality? Something other than gcc? I have three cases where non-module libtool libraries are installed into a subdir of $prefix/lib: * evolution: libraries under $libdir/evolution/$MAJOR.$MINOR * mysql: libraries under $libdir/mysql * libffi-3.0: usually under $prefix/lib, but I move the library under $prefix/lib/libffi/lib so that it's not grabbed accidentally instead of gcc's libffi (just like the headers are by default under $prefix/lib/libffi/include). Yaakov -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple