Problem with Libtool-1.5
jeremy at jutley.org
Tue May 27 22:01:34 PDT 2003
----- Original Message -----
From: "Greg Schafer" <gschafer at zip.com.au>
To: <lfs-dev at linuxfromscratch.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 10:22 PM
Subject: Re: Problem with Libtool-1.5
> On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 09:53:29PM -0400, Jeremy Utley wrote:
> > This thread was on BLFS-support and BLFS-dev the last few days - it
> > seems that libtool-1.5 will cause some packages (at the least
> > install their libraries without the .so extention.
> This goes against my understanding of how libtool works. The libfam
> already has a 1.4 version of ltmain.sh. How does the libtool from the
> system have a bearing on it? It shouldn't come into it at all.
This post from the libtool bug mailing list might shed some additional
light on the problem:
I don't pretend to understand all of it, but there is a reported bug in
Libtool 1.5 when a package ships with a earlier private version of
> (looks into it)
> Ok, maybe it's coz the fam patch touches all the autotools* stuff and
> therefore forces a rerun of libtoolize or sumthin.. just guessin tho..
> FWIW, the last time I built libfam was in Dec' (obviously before
> libtool-1.5) and I used this to workaround the autotools* rerun
> find . -name Makefile.in | xargs touch &&
> touch stamp-h.in
> NOTE! - I think I'm using a slightly defferent patch to BLFS so YMMV!
> I only raise the point here coz it may not be a libtool problem at
> just a side effect of BLFS patching libfam. Someone needs to figure it
> "Drop the LFS book back the libool-1.4.x" is not a good solution.
I'm not necessarily suggesting dropping back...but this problem,
according to Dagmar, affects more than just fam. I haven't seriously
scoured my system for affected libs, and most things appear to be
working normally. But, since I know a lot of the "GNU Experts" like you
and Ryan and all don't frequent the *-support lists, I figured it might
be a useful thing to get cross-posted.
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-dev' in the subject header of the message
More information about the lfs-dev