[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: handling of missing AR

From: Tim Mooney
Subject: Re: handling of missing AR
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 14:02:31 -0600 (CST)

In regard to: Re: handling of missing AR, Ralf Wildenhues said (at 9:33pm...:

Hi Brian,

* Brian Gough wrote on Wed, Mar 29, 2006 at 09:11:54PM CEST:

I've had a libtool-related problem reported with a test release of GNU
GSL on a Solaris system with gcc & Sun ld, but missing 'ar'.

Erm.  The user did not have /usr/ccs/bin in $PATH?
I've never heard about a Solaris where ar was not installed.

Considering Solaris 10 does away with archive libraries, it wouldn't
be a big surprise if some future release doesn't include "ar" by default
(though it probably has to be available as an install option for standards conformance). On my Solaris 10 system, ar is installed in /usr/ccs/bin/ar
(from SUNWbtool) and /usr/xpg4/bin/ar (from SUNWxcu4).

  checking for ar... false
  checking for ranlib... :
  checking for strip... :

And the build then fails later (as expected) on the first use of 'ar'

The question was asked "Why doesn't configure stop with an error when
it finds ar is missing?"  I didn't have a good answer to that.  For
the average user the final error message is a hard to decipher.

Well yes, but sometimes ar is not needed, for example it /may/ not be
needed when --disable-static is given.

But if --disable-static is *not* given, shouldn't it be required?  Shouldn't
libtool's portion of configure fail in that case?

Tim Mooney                              address@hidden
Information Technology Services         (701) 231-1076 (Voice)
Room 242-J6, IACC Building              (701) 231-8541 (Fax)
North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58105-5164

reply via email to

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