Re: Issue with libtool when cross-compiling

[Richard Purdie]

On Fri, 2010-02-12 at 19:34 +0100, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> I suppose you apply these modifications to a libtool that you are
> compiling. However, libtool is typically already embedded in each
> upstream tarball. Do you run autoreconf on all packages, so that a
> newer libtool script gets generated (autoreconf-ing each package takes a
> lot of time) ? Do you somehow replace the provided libtool by a fixed
> one ?
> 
> Moreover, some packages use libtool 1.5.x and some newer packages use
> libtool 2.2.x. How do you handle this version difference ?

Due to exactly this kind of problem OpenEmbedded generally autoreconfs
all sources.

> > There are other workarounds we have to apply after installing
> > packages, particularly modifying the .la files to be uninstalled to
> > get the sysroot to work properly.
> 
> « to be uninstalled » ?

Set installed=no in the .la files.

> In Buildroot, we already modify the libdir='' in all the .la files so
> that they refer to the sysroot instead of /usr/lib.

We change the dependency_libs line. The libdir line refers to the final
install location and /usr/lib is in fact valid there.

> If possible, could you point me to the location in OpenEmbedded where
> libtool is handled ? I already had a look at your patches, but don't
> understand how you re-generate the libtool script inside the different
> upstream packages.

meta/classes/autoconf.bbclass has the autoreconf code

meta/classes/base.bbclass has the .la file manipulation.

What I find frustrating is that buildroot is playing catchup to OE these
days. By the time you make all the improvements to buildroot, you end up
with OE.

What would it take to get the buildroot people using OE and focusing
effort to new problems, not ones already at least partially solved?

I'd love to see a kconfig wrapper to OE for example...

Cheers,

Richard