Re: cross-compiling question: static libraries and binaries to different places?

[Guido Draheim]

Es schrieb Dan Kegel:
> 
> Yes.  Doc and headers would stay on the build system.
> 
> > It is however
> > uncertain, e.g. on some build hosts, you could not
> > read the manpages, while they are needed on the target
> > host. Or just the other way round, useless on the
> > target host, and useful on the build host.
> 
> Not worried about those cases.  They are well served
> by the current situation.

*grin*

> 
> > It's not easy to decide about that. It all brings us
> > back to the question to consider some configure
> > options to make a multi build - currently, I do this
> > using a handmade toplevel configure that creates two
> > subdirectories, and then calls the real autoconf
> > configure from that subdirectory.
> 
> Yes, I'm doing something like that now.  (For each
> open source package I install, I have a top-level
> Makefile.in that knows how to unpack, configure, and
> install the open source package.)
> 
> I don't think this does the trick, though.  I can't see
> how it lets you install binaries and shared libs to a staging
> area for transfer to the target, and everything else to
> their final location on the build system, while making
> sure that libtool is told the proper final location
> of shared libraries as they will appear upon boot of the target.

now that's a good one - the .la file does have the information
where the lib will be on the target system. And we want to
retain it on the build system to have it ready for other 
packages to benefit from the information. That would be
perfect to compile a complete series of packages during
cross-compiling. And obviously, the whole thing of two
configure/build runs is just too much, the created libraries
and binaries are the same, so the work is double without
need. IYAM, the problem is not specifically in libtool or
autoconf, but in automake - we just need another install
target like "make install-buildfiles". Okay, we would need
one additional vector in configure, something like a
--build-prefix, so that it gets patched in just so, but it
is not specifically needed, it would be about enough to
give a make install-buildfiles BUILDPREFIX=xx. However, hmm,
*scratchinghead* in the case that we did run a crosscompiler,
the configure does know the default location of our cross
build tools anyway *hmmm* - still, the biggest support would
be needed in the makefile to install into a buildtool path 
and WITHOUT the need to relink there.

does this get us on the right track?
-- guido                                    http://freespace.sf.net/guidod
GCS/E/S/P C++/++++$ ULHS L++w- N++@ d(+-) s+a- r+@>+++ y++ 5++X- (geekcode)