Re: MAC OS X, static compilation and libtool

[George Bosilca]

Ralf,

Right, I will do it only for static libraries. In the case of dynamic  
libraries, it looks like everything is handled just fine, even the OS  
X linker do the right thing. Additionally, we cannot have the absolute  
rpath in our software (in distributed environments the libraries can  
be installed on different locations).

  george.

On Mar 18, 2008, at 3:09 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:

> Hello George,
>
> * George Bosilca wrote on Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 03:07:09PM CET:
> > As far as I see libtool internally do the right thing (all our
> > executables and tests compile correctly). The real problem seems to  
> > come
> > from the fact that we extract the libtool compilation and linking  
> > flags
> > in order to use them inside our wrapper, and that we use -l and -L
> > instead of the absolute path to the libraries.
> >
> > Peter email confirmed that we should use the full path to our  
> > libraries,
> > instead of expecting a specific behavior from the linker. I will  
> > replace
> > all (-l and -L) with the full path to our libraries, which  
> > definitively
> > looks like the cleanest approach.
>
> Will you do this only for static libraries you link against?
> Because for shared libraries, that can have unintended consequences on
> some systems (e.g., absolute rpath entries like /usr/lib/libfoo.so.1).
>
> Cheers,
> Ralf

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature