apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
Subject Re: svn commit: r798326 - in /apr/apr-util/branches/1.3.x: CHANGES build/rpm/apr-util.spec.in
Date Tue, 28 Jul 2009 21:04:37 GMT
Graham Leggett wrote:
> William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>> -0.5, can you clarify why this isn't true from the Makefile itself?
>> This just didn't seem like a rpm-specific quirk.
> On MacOSX, libtool does the right thing, and ./testall is a script that
> picks up the right libraries from the right place. On Linux, ./testall
> is the final binary, and so only picks up libs from LD_LIBRARY_PATH.

Irrelevant.  ./testall wasn't built for execution, make check was built
for execution.  And the Makefile check: target illustrates how to run
this.  -1 (binding, veto) for an RPM-specific hack.  Nothing that is
produced from make; make check; make install should be altered by the
rpm process; you obviously screw non-rpm, linux users in the process.

> It looks like this is caused by a flag called "-no-install" which is
> passed to libtool, and I find this hard wired into configure.in:
> # Use -no-install to link the test programs on all platforms
> # but Darwin, where it would cause the programs to be linked
> # against installed versions of libapr instead of those just
> # built.
> case $host in
> *-apple-darwin*) LT_NO_INSTALL="" ;;
> *) LT_NO_INSTALL="-no-install" ;;
> esac
> So, anyone know who put this there, and why?

Because you do not want the destination RPATH as recorded in the binary,
you want the LD_LIBRARY_PATH (or LIBPATH or SHLIB_PATH).  Because you
may test before install, while installing over an existing tree, using
the installed flavor would be fatal.

View raw message