Re: Is the grammar of .la files changed in new libtool 2.4?

[Scott Garman <scott.a.garman@intel.com>]

On 01/25/2011 09:56 PM, Lu, Lianhao wrote:
> Hi Scott,
>
> I'm wondering whether the grammar of the .la files generated by new
> libtool 2.4 is different from the old ones. Take the file
> libxcb-res.la generated by libxcb for example, it contains a line:
>
> dependency_libs=' =/usr/lib/libxcb.la =/usr/lib/libXau.la'
>
> While in the old libxcb.la file, this line appeared to be
>
> dependency_libs=' /usr/lib/libxcb.la /usr/lib/libxcb.la'
>
> Is the "=" a new grammar for liblool 2.4? Because in meta-toolchain,
> it needs to fix these .la files by replacing all the "/usr/lib" to
> "${SDKTARGETSYSROOT}/usr/lib", etc. This new "=" causes the original
> regular expression not work.

Hi Lianhao,

I'm not sure if the "=" grammar changed with Libtool 2.4 or not, as I 
haven't spent any time digging into Libtool when we used 2.2 a while ago.

I do believe you will run into problems if you try to set 
dependency_libs to =/usr/lib. The reason is that you should not be 
adding system default directories to dependency_libs. 
=${SDKTARGETSYSROOT}/usr/lib should be fine.

Where is the regular expression you're referring to above? Since Poky 
has been using Libtool 2.4 for a while now (I simply enabled sysroot 
support), I would think this error would have cropped up much earlier.

> b.t.w. Do we still need the code in meta-toolchain to fix broken .la
> files? According to my understanding, the new sysroot support in
> libtool 2.4 should solve this problem, right? Thanks!

Again, which code snippet are you referring to (file and line #, 
please)? There are some changes I made to remove .la munging code, and 
I'm pretty sure Richard reviewed it giving consideration to how it would 
impact the meta-toolchain builds.

Once I have the code sections to examine we should be able to iron this 
out more clearly.

Thanks,

Scott

-- 
Scott Garman
Embedded Linux Distro Engineer - Yocto Project
Intel Open Source Technology Center