On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 05:31:44PM -0700, Colin Patrick McCabe wrote: > Does anyone know if Automake has a way of expressing dependencies between > libraries? > > For instance, currently our code has this set of (logical) dependencies: > rbd -> librbd -> librados -> libcommon > > Where a -> b means "a depends on symbols found in b". > > Unfortunately, the problem that I've run into is that automake seems to have > no way of expressing dependencies between libraries. > > You can do: > > librbd_la_LIBADD += librados.la > > This line does seem to take care of the business of making the final librbd.so > depend on librados.so. > > But you'll still get undefined symbols if you try to use librbd.la later in > the Makefile.am without also remembering to include librados. So remembering > the dependencies is up to the developer, which could be a problem if we decide > to create more libraries (say, by splitting libcommon.) Is there a workaround > for this? This (and the next sections from there on) seem to talk exactly about this: http://sources.redhat.com/autobook/autobook/autobook_76.html#SEC76 The Autobook is heavy reading, but is very very good. Later sections cover automate integration. http://sources.redhat.com/autobook/autobook/autobook_toc.html > Another problem that I've experienced is that Automake seems to view a > particular library as either 'shared' or 'static' inherently, and can't handle > mixing the two. For example, if you do: > > > librbd_la_LIBADD += libcommon.a As explained in Autobook, libtool does *both*, I think that automake snippet is just trying to cram a static library in a place that only expects shared a one. -- :(){ :|:&};: -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
