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

[Dan Kegel]

Guido Draheim wrote:
> > ...
> > 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.

Yes, but just because it gets copied to the staging
area doesn't mean it's unavailable to the build system.
We just have to tell whoever is looking for .la's and
shared libraries at build time to look in the staging area.

> ...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. 

Er, maybe...

> 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?

I dunno, I think we need an example project to illustrate this.
A 'hello world' where main writes 'hello' and a shared libarary
writes 'world', maybe. 
- Dan