[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


From: Bob Rossi
Subject: Re: prog_DEPENDENCIES
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 10:48:35 -0500
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.12-2006-07-14

On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 04:40:03PM +0100, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> Hi Bob,
> * Bob Rossi wrote on Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 04:19:20PM CET:
> > On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 07:52:02PM +0100, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > > > BTW, all the _DEPENDENCIES that I'm talking about are
> > > > libraries that are built from my own project, but not necessarily in the
> > > > same Makefile.
> > > 
> > > OK.  You will have to make sure these libraries exist and are up to
> > > date, when they are needed.  Typically by recursing to that other
> > > Makefile earlier (i.e., by way of SUBDIRS ordering).
> [...]
> > 
> > One other question. This is in regards to libraries depending on
> > libraries. If library B depends on library A, do I have to put a 
> >   libB_a_DEPENDENCIES = $(top_builddir)/..../libA.a
> > or does just having the SUBDIRS traverse in the correct order work?
> Erm, how can a static library depend upon another static library?

Haha. That's what I thought. I'm not using libtool. I simply have some
libraries that use other libraries. So the dependency information
provided by the compiler will make sure that library B is rebuilt if
library A is modified, right? In that case, I suppose I don't care about
the _DEPENDENCIES line. 

How did this build system ever work in the first place? :)

Thanks for the help,
Bob Rossi

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]