scsh-hackers
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Scsh-hackers] Packaging proposal text docs

To: scsh-hackers@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Scsh-hackers] Packaging proposal text docs
From: Eric Knauel <knauel@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de>
Date: Tue Jan 27 02:27:40 2004
List-id: Discussion among the implementors <scsh-hackers.lists.sourceforge.net>
Sender: scsh-hackers-admin@lists.sourceforge.net
On Tue 27 Jan 2004 10:13, Martin Gasbichler 
<gasbichl@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> writes:

> Eric Knauel <knauel@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> writes:
>>
>>  - I think there is a need for some machinery that helps to bring
>>    information acquired during the `./configure'-step back into the
>>    scope of pkg-def.scm.  Load.scm, for example, should not hardcode
>>    the shared module extension to ".so", that's wrong on some
>>    platforms.  (It's not clear to me whether this is only a cosmetical
>>    problem and or if it's harming functionality.)  However, configure
>>    finds out about the correct extension and it would be smartish if
>>    the Packaging proposal describes a method for accessing arbitrary
>>    information from configure.
>
> But this is wrong: load.scm should work on any platform so you cannot
> obtain the extension from configure or any other tool that runs at
> installation time. You really need to extract it from libtool's .la
> file. I hope David Frese will write this functionality soon.

Hm, right.  I just checked in a modified version of load.scm.in for
scsh-yp which reads the .la file.

-Eric
-- 
"Excuse me --- Di Du Du Duuuuh Di Dii --- Huh Weeeheeee" (Albert King)

Attachment: pgpvGakoVteGO.pgp
Description: PGP signature

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>