From: UnixOS2 Archive To: "UnixOS2 Archive" Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 05:00:05 EST-10EDT,10,-1,0,7200,3,-1,0,7200,3600 Subject: [UnixOS2_Archive] No. 63 ************************************************** Tuesday 04 March 2003 Number 63 ************************************************** Subjects for today 1 Re: Libtool Status : Thomas E. Dickey" 2 Re: Libtool Status : John Poltorak 3 Saving MBR using dd : John Poltorak 4 Re: Libtool Status : Thomas E. Dickey" 5 Re: Libtool Status : Stefan Neis 6 Re: Libtool Status : Thomas Dickey 7 Re: Libtool Status : Andreas Buening 8 Re: Libtool Status : Andreas Buening 9 Re: Libtool Status : Andreas Buening **= Email 1 ==========================** Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 05:24:50 -0500 (EST) From: "Thomas E. Dickey" Subject: Re: Libtool Status On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, Andreas Buening wrote: > Patrick Ash wrote: > > > > What is the current status of libtool on Os/2? I remember discussion > > sometime ago where the consensus seemed to be that it was broken. Has > > there been any improvement, and there a chance that it will work > > correctly if I try to build the latest version (1.4.3) Thanks. > > I've just uploaded a patched 1.4.3. It's temporarily available at > http://unix.os2site.com/sw/pub/source/autoconf/libtool-1_4_3.zip > I hope I've added all that magic stuff I used for gettext. ;-) > > But a warning: libtool contains a lot of voodoo, so I'm not 100% > sure whether it really works. The included libltdl is just dummy. > Never forget either --disable-static or --disable-shared. if it doesn't build shared libraries (dll's), the only point of having libtool is to accommodate packages that are too interwined with automake to be portable. -- T.E.Dickey http://invisible-island.net ftp://invisible-island.net **= Email 2 ==========================** Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:38:42 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Libtool Status On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 05:24:50AM -0500, Thomas E. Dickey wrote: > On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, Andreas Buening wrote: > > > Patrick Ash wrote: > > > > > > What is the current status of libtool on Os/2? I remember discussion > > > sometime ago where the consensus seemed to be that it was broken. Has > > > there been any improvement, and there a chance that it will work > > > correctly if I try to build the latest version (1.4.3) Thanks. > > > > I've just uploaded a patched 1.4.3. It's temporarily available at > > http://unix.os2site.com/sw/pub/source/autoconf/libtool-1_4_3.zip > > I hope I've added all that magic stuff I used for gettext. ;-) > > > > But a warning: libtool contains a lot of voodoo, so I'm not 100% > > sure whether it really works. The included libltdl is just dummy. > > Never forget either --disable-static or --disable-shared. > > if it doesn't build shared libraries (dll's), the only point of having > libtool is to accommodate packages that are too interwined with automake > to be portable. I've never really understood how libtool works... Can I use it with apps such a GNU Find so that it creates a GNUFIND.DLL just like the current OS/2 port? I've never known how to creates DLL's using the GNU Build System. > -- > T.E.Dickey > http://invisible-island.net > ftp://invisible-island.net -- John **= Email 3 ==========================** Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:10:02 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Saving MBR using dd Is it possible to get a copy of an MBR using the OS/2 port of dd? -- John **= Email 4 ==========================** Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:03:56 -0500 (EST) From: "Thomas E. Dickey" Subject: Re: Libtool Status On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Andreas Buening wrote: > It builds shared libraries as well as static libraries but not at the > same time (due to the fact that static and import libraries have the > same name on OS/2). that sounds like an either-or situation: if the import libraries are installed, there's no place to put the static libraries. -- T.E.Dickey http://invisible-island.net ftp://invisible-island.net **= Email 5 ==========================** Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:00:04 +0100 (CET) From: Stefan Neis Subject: Re: Libtool Status On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, John Poltorak wrote: > just like the current OS/2 port? I've never known how to creates DLL's > using the GNU Build System. So far, the easiest (by far) I could find was to build a static lib with the GNU Build System and then run some "dllar.cmd" on it to get a DLL. libtool doesn't provide DLL's easily, it just causes nightmares. ;-) (And even worse, when you want both static and shared lib, you have to go through the whole configure/make process twice (on OS/2) or at least have to build everything twice (everywhere else?)). Regards, Stefan P.S.: Yes, I realize that it is not possible on all platforms to generate a DLL/shared object from a static library but if you're willing to make some compromises on the performance of the static lib (e.g. compile it with -fPIC on Solaris), it _does_ work. I really can't understand what problem libtool is trying to solve. :-( It's just creating them.... -- Micro$oft is not an answer. It is a question. The answer is 'no'. **= Email 6 ==========================** Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:27:47 -0500 From: Thomas Dickey Subject: Re: Libtool Status On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 11:52:38PM +0100, Andreas Buening wrote: > Thomas E. Dickey wrote: > > > > On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Andreas Buening wrote: > > > > > It builds shared libraries as well as static libraries but not at the > > > same time (due to the fact that static and import libraries have the > > > same name on OS/2). > > > > that sounds like an either-or situation: if the import libraries are > > installed, there's no place to put the static libraries. > > Yep. You can install a a.out .a static and an omf .lib import library > or vice versa. Or you can install them into different directories, > but you can't compile them at the same time. libtool is supposed to fix all of that, though... -- Thomas E. Dickey http://invisible-island.net ftp://invisible-island.net **= Email 7 ==========================** Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 21:44:21 +0100 From: Andreas Buening Subject: Re: Libtool Status Thomas E. Dickey wrote: > > On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, Andreas Buening wrote: [libtool] > if it doesn't build shared libraries (dll's), the only point of having > libtool is to accommodate packages that are too interwined with automake > to be portable. It builds shared libraries as well as static libraries but not at the same time (due to the fact that static and import libraries have the same name on OS/2). Bye, Andreas -- One OS to rule them all, One OS to find them, One OS to bring them all and in the darkness bind them In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie. **= Email 8 ==========================** Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 21:44:51 +0100 From: Andreas Buening Subject: Re: Libtool Status Stefan Neis wrote: > > On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, John Poltorak wrote: > > > just like the current OS/2 port? I've never known how to creates DLL's > > using the GNU Build System. > > So far, the easiest (by far) I could find was to build a static lib with > the GNU Build System and then run some "dllar.cmd" on it to get a DLL. > libtool doesn't provide DLL's easily, it just causes nightmares. ;-) > (And even worse, when you want both static and shared lib, you have to go > through the whole configure/make process twice (on OS/2) or at least > have to build everything twice (everywhere else?)). As far I remember it works on Linux (though not on Solaris, for example). [snip} > P.S.: Yes, I realize that it is not possible on all platforms to generate > a DLL/shared object from a static library but if you're willing to > make some compromises on the performance of the static lib (e.g. > compile it with -fPIC on Solaris), it _does_ work. I really can't > understand what problem libtool is trying to solve. :-( > It's just creating them.... Solaris supports LD_LIBRARY_PATH unlike other Unixes. The library paths can be hardcoded (though I've never understood the rpath thing) or you need some weird flags to create a shared library. Imagine you link ~/src/foo-1.2/src/footest with the absolute path of ~/src/foo-1.2/lib/libfoo.so.1.2.0 in your build directory. Then you improve your dllar for each platform and finally you end up with a libtool clone. ;-) Bye, Andreas -- One OS to rule them all, One OS to find them, One OS to bring them all and in the darkness bind them In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie. **= Email 9 ==========================** Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 23:52:38 +0100 From: Andreas Buening Subject: Re: Libtool Status Thomas E. Dickey wrote: > > On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Andreas Buening wrote: > > > It builds shared libraries as well as static libraries but not at the > > same time (due to the fact that static and import libraries have the > > same name on OS/2). > > that sounds like an either-or situation: if the import libraries are > installed, there's no place to put the static libraries. Yep. You can install a a.out .a static and an omf .lib import library or vice versa. Or you can install them into different directories, but you can't compile them at the same time. Bye, Andreas -- One OS to rule them all, One OS to find them, One OS to bring them all and in the darkness bind them In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.