[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [1.5.26] new test using 'make install DESTDIR=...'
From: |
Michael Haubenwallner |
Subject: |
Re: [1.5.26] new test using 'make install DESTDIR=...' |
Date: |
Mon, 17 Mar 2008 09:49:01 +0100 |
On Sat, 2008-03-15 at 18:36 +0100, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> Hello Michael,
>
> * Michael Haubenwallner wrote on Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 05:53:48PM CET:
> >
> > as I still encounter problems with libtool-1.5.26 and "make install
> > DESTDIR=...", from 'depdemo-inst.test' I've derived a new
> > 'depdemo-instd.test', simply installing depdemo via DESTDIR.
> > Attached is a patch to add this test for libtool-1.5.26.
>
> Thank you for the patch. Is there anything keeping you from moving to
> Libtool-2.2?
I'm working on gentoo-alt/prefix (using portage on different platforms
into some prefix as non-root), so I'm not really a package maintainer.
Sometimes we just apply libtool patches in-place, sometimes we need a
full autoreconf, but I haven't tried yet if it works smoothly for a
package originally using libtool-1.5 to be libtoolized with libtool-2.2.
Is it intended to have this working smoothly ?
> If no, could you be bothered to redo this for 2.2? If
> you don't have time, I can do it but it may be a while. Note that I
> don't have a problem with still adding patches to branch-1-5, but I'm
> not sure whether there will be a 1.5.28, and independently of this
> question we should ensure HEAD does not have any regressions over
> branch-1-5.
I don't really care for another 1.5 release, basically just want to have
some agreement on the patch to know I'm on the right way - and in case
there is another 1.5 release I can drop this patch.
>
> Note also that 2.2 already has a couple of DESTDIR-related tests in
> tests/destdir.at. But more test exposure certainly cannot hurt.
>
> Thanks for your efforts.
>
> > It simply works when using something like the second attached patch to
> > fall back to "guess we'll fake it" (like all my other platforms),
> > although hardcode_direct IMHO is generally a bad idea when some RUNPATH
> > can be encoded, even without using DESTDIR.
>
> We've put some fixes in HEAD for this, notably for AIX and OpenBSD.
Is there a release containing them already ?
Thanks!
/haubi/