[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: shared lib requires main ?!
From: |
Ralf Wildenhues |
Subject: |
Re: shared lib requires main ?! |
Date: |
Mon, 3 Nov 2008 23:00:18 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) |
Hello Gabriel,
please don't top-post, thanks.
* salsaman wrote on Mon, Nov 03, 2008 at 01:33:17PM CET:
> Following your advice and using the -module flag has indeed removed the
> leading "lib" from the real library as required.
>
> However, in the installation directory I now see (for example):
>
> foo.a foo.la foo.so
>
> First of all I only want the "foo.so" to be installed.
You can avoid the static archive with 'configure --disable-static', or
by adding --tag=disable-static to the link flags of foo.la.
There should be no need to skip foo.la; it's just a small text file that
helps libtool and hurts no one else.
> Second, I need to change the file extension in the install directory. In one
> directory, there should be no file extension (if possible), so "foo.so" is
> installed as just "foo". In a second directory (with a different
> Makefile.am) again only "bar.so" should be installed, however the file
> extension should be ".wo" so it ends up as "bar.wo"
Why? (serious question)
> Of course, this needs to be done in a portable way.
That cannot be portable. Some systems cannot load modules if they don't
have some prescribed suffix.
Cheers,
Ralf