From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Lionel Landwerlin Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2010 01:47:34 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] Libtool work: a tentative summary In-Reply-To: References: <20100928223652.6dc72083@surf> <1286112146.27944.349.camel@coalu.atr> <20101003162219.62ad7888@surf> Message-ID: <1286149654.27944.363.camel@coalu.atr> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net As long as we keep the following things, we can bump to 2.2 or 2.4 : * sed pass on .la files * Add -L$(STAGING_DIR)/lib -L$(STAGING_DIR)/usr/lib to LDFLAGS * patches for encountered libtool versions I always took the hypothesis that we wanted to get rid of the first 2, and wanted to keep the third only for special cases. I encountered problem with libtool 2.4 for several packages under the following conditions : * run autoreconf on the package * do not apply the libtool patch * configure the package with --with-sysroot=$(STAGING_DIR) option Martin, did you have the same setup ? I guess we're back to the current situation if we don't pass the --with-sysroot option and we apply a libtool patch for the correct libtool version. Regards, -- Lionel Landwerlin Le dimanche 03 octobre 2010 ? 15:36 -0700, Martin Banky a ?crit : > If you want to integrate my patches, I would like to submit a new set > of patches with some changes in preparation for libtool 2.4, mainly > with Makefile.autotools.in. I have it setup now to distinguish between > 1.5.x, 2.2.x, and 2.4. Also, in working on converting the packages to > either gentargets or autotargets, I've been noticing a lot of packages > have their own libtool patch. I would like to go through, and clean > them up. I have a question, why can't we upgrade to libtool 2.4? I've > been running it now since I first posted the heads up patch, and have > used it with the sysroot option turned on without any obvious issues. > If the sysroot option is an issue, we could turn it off for now and > use the libtool patches until we integrate the sysroot option > properly, right? The imagemagick patch set that I posted, was first > done with libtool 2.4 and autoreconfigure turned on. I wanted to make > sure that it would work properly in this configuration, in preparation > of the coming changes. It was then actually posted with > autoreconfigure turned off and using the libtool patch. As a side > note, I just realized that imagemagick is using libtool 2.2.x, which > means that it's incorporation is blocked until either I add it's own > libtool patch or we commit my libtool patch set. Sorry about that. If > anyone would like me to add the libtool patch to imagemagick, and > repost, let me know. > > Martin > > On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 7:22 AM, Thomas Petazzoni > wrote: > Hello, > > On Sun, 03 Oct 2010 15:22:26 +0200 > Lionel Landwerlin wrote: > > > Here is what I would like to us to do for the next > releases : > > > > 1) Bump libtool package to 2.2, more and more packages > require libtool > > 2.2, and we're stuck to not autoreconfigure them without > 2.2. This is > > already creating problems to Thomas when trying to bump host > > libglib/libgtk packages. > > > 1a) Integrate Martin Banky's proposal so that packages using > libtool > 2.2 can work without the need to autoreconfigure them. > > > 2) Eventually integrate some patches to libtool 2.2 to be > able to > > cross compile autoreconfigured packages. > > > > 3) When the libtool 2.4 sysroot issue is sorted out, bump to > libtool > > 2.4 and get rid of the patches integrated in 2). > > > > I think 1) is mandatory for 2010.11. > > > And 1a). > > So, I would suggest : > > *) Peter merges Martin Banky's set of patches on libtool > > http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/buildroot/2010-September/037505.html > > > *) Lionel, could you propose a patch that just bumps libtool > to 2.2 ? > > Lionel, Martin, Peter, what do you think ? > > Thanks, > > Thomas > -- > Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons > Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux > development, consulting, training and support. > http://free-electrons.com > _______________________________________________ > > > buildroot mailing list > buildroot at busybox.net > http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/buildroot > > > _______________________________________________ > buildroot mailing list > buildroot at busybox.net > http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/buildroot