Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 00:07:32 EST-10EDT,10,-1,0,7200,3,-1,0,7200,3600 Subject: [Ux2bs_Archive] No. 369 ************************************************** Monday 29 November 2004 Number 369 ************************************************** Subjects for today 1 Re: libtool : Andreas Buening 2 Re: libtool : Stefan.Neis at t-online.de 3 Re: libtool : Andreas Buening **= Email 1 ==========================** Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 17:17:10 +0100 From: Andreas Buening Subject: Re: libtool Stefan.Neis at t-online.de wrote: > Could somebody kindly remind me, how to use libtool on OS/2? There have been several libtool releases during the last year and I don't even know what's the current state. You need AC_LIBTOOL_WIN32_DLL AC_PROG_LIBTOOL in configure.in. To recreate the libtool files in the source directory, you may have to run libtoolize. > I have an application (bakefile, wxWindows' cross-platform > makefile generator) which _almost_ manages to build the one > DLL required, but fails to pass in the known libs in the last > linking step - seems like some simple problem which might be > easily fixed by rerunning the right stuff on OS/2 instead of > using the Unix generated scripts, but I have no idea what and > how ... Does it fail with the last linker step or does it just produce a static lib? Bye, Andreas _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 2 ==========================** Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 18:08:39 +0100 From: Stefan.Neis at t-online.de Subject: Re: libtool Hi, > You need > > AC_LIBTOOL_WIN32_DLL > AC_PROG_LIBTOOL > > in configure.in. I suppose the configure.in is just fine already, but I'll check that it has those two lines. > To recreate the libtool files in the source directory, you > may have to run libtoolize. Any known good version that's particularly recommended? Or should I just take whatever I have on my system and see if that works? > Does it fail with the last linker step or does it just produce > a static lib? If I use configure --disable-shared, it produces a static lib just fine (but it's useless for loading it into python ... ;-) ), by default (i.e. without --disable-shared), it just fails the last linker step - apparently because somehow the "-Lwhatever -lpython23" gets lost, so it complains about a couple of unresolved python-related symbols when trying to create the DLL). Regards, Stefan _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 3 ==========================** Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 22:00:09 +0100 From: Andreas Buening Subject: Re: libtool Stefan.Neis at t-online.de wrote: > > To recreate the libtool files in the source directory, you > > may have to run libtoolize. > > Any known good version that's particularly recommended? > Or should I just take whatever I have on my system and see if > that works? The last version I patched was 1.4.3. You might want to try that one. If you're package doesn't require a much newer version it should work. > > Does it fail with the last linker step or does it just produce > > a static lib? > > If I use configure --disable-shared, it produces a static lib just fine > (but it's useless for loading it into python ... ;-) ), by default (i.e. > without --disable-shared), it just fails the last linker step - apparently > because somehow the "-Lwhatever -lpython23" gets lost, so it complains about > a couple of unresolved python-related symbols when trying to create the DLL). And does --disable-static change anything? Bye, Andreas _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs