[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Re-ordering of libraries by libtool.

From: Richard Shann
Subject: Re: Re-ordering of libraries by libtool.
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2013 18:17:33 +0000

Thank you for the thoughtful response.
On Sun, 2013-02-24 at 10:50 -0600, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Feb 2013, Richard Shann wrote:
> > In the GNU/Denemo project we are trying to cross-build a for windows on
> > Debian stable using static libraries. The libtool step is re-ordering
> > the libraries before invoking the linker, and so it fails.
> > The cross-environment has version 2.22 of GNU/Binutils, but I am not
> > clear where the actual libtool is coming from - the host libtool is
> > version 2.26b.
> It is not wise to use such an archaic libtool.  You can determine 
> which version is actually used by doing './libtool --version' in the 
> build tree.
My problem was that the build is done with some environment set, without
hacking at it I cannot be sure what is being invoked (the tools are
being built for doing the compiling and linking as well as the final
> > I can't find online documentation for this version, and even in the
> > latest version there is almost no mention of libtool re-ordering the
> > directories as given. I noticed one previous email on this topic, which
> > received no responses. Can someone help?
> If any libraries have .la files, then this cause libtool to inject 
> library dependencies (additional needed libraries) into the build, 
> which may have the apparent effect of re-ordering.
But that is intended to be only an apparent effect - the later
appearance of the library on the link line would surely not be deleted?
This is what I appeared to encounter - no matter how many times I listed
the set of libraries on the $(CXXLD) line a symbol which nm says was
defined in a library was not found.
> Regardless, you should be using libtool 2.4.2.  Libtool 2.2.6b is a a 
> security-patched version of libtool 2.2.6a, which was released in 
> 2008.
Yes Debian stable is always about 2 years behind; I guess that is why it
is called stable :) Trying to mix-and-match components is (for me) an
exercise in frustration.

Once again, thanks - at the moment we have returned to trying to build
using GNU/LilyPond's GUB system...

Richard Shann

reply via email to

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