[libcmml-dev] Re: libcmml.0 vs libcmml.so.0

[ozone at algorithm.com.au]

On 19/11/2003, at 9:09 PM, Jamie Wilkinson wrote:

> So the Debian shared library finding scripts make a few assumptions
> about shared libraries, and that's that the string '.so' appears
> somewhere in the filename.  This is probably dumb, but there's not
> really much else to go on (except maybe finding *every* file, using 
> file
> to see if it's an ELF, and then using objdump to see if the thing has a
> SONAME in it, but that's another story).
>
> So, when you go to check your binaries (say, cmml-validate) against the
> list of known shlibs and so you can work out which packages you need to
> depend on, you go Oh!  Here's a libcmml.0!  What the fuck is that!
>
> A quick patch later, you find yourself going libcmml.0!  That's cool!
> Where the fuck does that come from?  and then we run into the problem
> described in the first paragraph.

Interesting, I ran into the same problem building libcmml (and very old 
versions of libannodex) on Mac OS X: older libtool versions didn't 
stick a .dylib extension on as they should.  You were building Debian 
packages for linux/PPC, I assume?  I thought this was a Mac OS 
X-specific problem with libtool.

Maybe we should check for libtool 1.4.2 in autogen.sh and put a warning 
there.


-- 
% Andre Pang : trust.in.love.to.save