[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
executable)
>
> > 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