This is the mail archive of the
automake@gnu.org
mailing list for the automake project.
Re: "empty" Libtool libraries: (typo corrections)
On May 24, 1999, "Matthew D. Langston" <langston@SLAC.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
> According to the Libtool 1.3 manual, interlibrary dependencies don't
> currently work for Libtool libraries in the same package. However, it
> occurred to me that I could make another package that creates 5 "empty"
> Libtool libraries (i.e. empty of ".lo" files), but contains only the
> interlibrary dependency information.
Creating `empty' libraries is not portable, but you could create 5
convenience libraries with a single dummy object file, each one
depending on a set of libraries. Then, linking the convenience
library into a program would have the expected result.
The only problem I see is that convenience libraries are not
installable, but you could work around this problem by creating the
convenience library at the installation directory, until we remove
this limitation (if we ever do)
> Does this sound reasonable? Does Libtool support these "empty" Libtool
> libraries? If so, how would I build them using Automake?
noinst_LTLIBRARIES = libset1.la
libset1_la_SOURCES = dummy1.c
> Is there a better way to solve my problem than attempting to create
> "empty" Libtool libraries?
I don't think so. Convenience libraries seem to be the perfect
solution. Maybe in the future libtool could be extended so as to
support zero-object libraries, that wouldn't create the old-style
archive, and would just behave as a macro that expands to a couple of
-Rs, -Ls and -ls.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.dcc.unicamp.br/~oliva IC-Unicamp, Bra[sz]il
{oliva,Alexandre.Oliva}@dcc.unicamp.br aoliva@{acm.org,computer.org}
oliva@{gnu.org,kaffe.org,{egcs,sourceware}.cygnus.com,samba.org}
*** E-mail about software projects will be forwarded to mailing lists