Problems with using libtool dependencies in opcodes

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

This problem:
  http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/2003-06/msg00025.html
is still present, and it's causing me a real headache.

I had hopes that the latest version of libtool would fix it, so I did a
hack-job to get all of binutils using the new version and tried again.  What
we used to get was a command like this (roughly):

gcc -shared  .libs/dis-buf.o .libs/disassemble.o .libs/dis-init.o \
  .libs/i386-dis.o  -L/opt/src/binutils/inst-tmp/obj/libiberty/pic \
  -Wl,--rpath -Wl,/usr/local/lib -L/usr/local/lib -lbfd \
  -Wl,-soname -Wl,libopcodes-2.14.90.so -o .libs/libopcodes-2.14.90.so


Now we get:

gcc -shared  .libs/dis-buf.o .libs/disassemble.o .libs/dis-init.o \
  .libs/i386-dis.o  -L/opt/src/binutils/inst-tmp/obj/libiberty/pic \
  -L/opt/src/binutils/inst-tmp/inst/usr/local/lib -L/usr/local/lib -lbfd \
  -Wl,-soname -Wl,libopcodes-2.14.90.so -o .libs/libopcodes-2.14.90.so

That fixes the immediate problem but opens up a whole new can of worms.  By
adding -L$libdir to the path, my cross compiler configuration starts trying
to open /usr/lib/libc.so, which points it to /lib/libc.so.6.

This means that the patch to fix opcodes' listed dependencies (which is a
legitimate problem, but AFAIK only causes real-world problems with
prelinking) has caused all sorts of build regressions.  I think that the
cure is worse than the problem.

Does anyone have any bright ideas for making libtool behave?  If not how do
you feel about reverting:

2003-05-17  Andreas Jaeger  <aj@suse.de>

        * Makefile.am (libopcodes_la_LIBADD): Add libbfd.la.
        (libopcodes_la_DEPENDENCIES): Add libbfd.la.
        * Makefile.in: Regenerated.

until someone comes up with a bright idea?  Am I forgetting another problem
this patch solved?

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer