Le 11 mai 09 à 15:27, Olivier Guilyardi a écrit : > Stéphane Letz wrote: >> >> Le 11 mai 09 à 14:43, Olivier Guilyardi a écrit : >> >>> Dave Phillips wrote: >>>> On Sun, 2009-05-10 at 22:45 +0200, Olivier Guilyardi wrote: >>>> >>>>> Okay, this problem should be solved in SVN. >>>>> >>>> And so it is, thank you. :) >>> >>> Glad to read that :) Thanks for your feedback. >>> >>>> >>>>> To a certain extent one might consider the problem comes from the >>>>> jackdmp waf >>>>> build system, which doesn't provide libtool .la files, while all >>>>> packaged >>>>> libraries do provide these files. >>> >>> [...] >>> >>>> I've run into the same problem when trying to build the latest >>>> MusE 1.0 >>>> rc2. It gets to the link stage and fails because of missing >>>> libjack.la. >>>> If anyone from the MusE development group reads this perhaps they >>>> too >>>> can reconsider their use of libtool. >>> >>> Well, every single autoconf/automake-based software which builds a >>> shared >>> library for internal or external use, normally uses libtool. Thus, I >>> think that >>> the fact that jackdmp doesn't provide libjack.la is a bug. >>> >>> I'm CC'ing Stéphane Letz. Although I don't know how to do it, I >>> suppose that you >>> can make .la files with waf, since it claim(ed) to support libtool >>> emulation. >>> >>> -- >>> Olivier >> >> >> What is the libjack.la file supposed to contain? and what is it for? > > .la files are files generated and used by libtool to link a shared > library with > another library. These files actually contains a small amount of > textual > meta-data for libtool to decide how linking should be performed. > They do not > replace .so or .a files, they complement them in the libtool world. > > In other terms, every autoconf/automake based software which builds > a shared > library which is itself linked with libjack, normally uses libtool > and thus > requires libjack.la to be present. This includes applications (such > as Muse I > presume) which build convenient internal shared libraries. > > I suggest that you ask on the waf-users google group how to make > an .la file, > they know what this is all about. > > -- > Olivier It seems using .la file is *bad idea* AKAIKS, see: Jun 09 21:03:51 * drobilla wonders if he can emulate his recursive but separate build system thingie w/ waf Jun 09 21:03:51 nedko drobilla: yup, versioning is very easy but i havent tried generation of .la files yet Jun 09 21:04:05 las nedko: DON'T !!!!!!!! Jun 09 21:04:08 moret drobilla: just for info, if you want to test netjack2, please use waf, it's better than scons for netjack... Jun 09 21:04:09 drobilla meh, who needs 'em Jun 09 21:04:12 las .la files are the devil's work Jun 09 21:04:22 nedko las: dont what? Jun 09 21:04:32 drobilla moret: obviously I did use waf ;) Jun 09 21:04:32 las nedko: don't try to generate .la files Jun 09 21:04:41 drobilla moret: don't plan on testing netjack, but thanks Jun 09 21:05:02 nedko las: i havent, but autotools do it, and i think waf can do that too Jun 09 21:05:31 drobilla las: you do know the way libraries are built in the ardour tree is completely inappropriate for distribution right? :) Jun 09 21:05:43 drobilla (not because of .la files, but still. life is less fun when it's not just a helper) Jun 09 21:05:54 las drobilla: depends who you talk to. Mozilla still does it this way Jun 09 21:06:05 las drobilla: and they have a pretty solid rationale for it Jun 09 21:06:32 drobilla las: you can't system wide install completely unversioned shared libraries! Jun 09 21:06:56 drobilla no way they do. maybe in version specific / lib/mozilla Jun 09 21:07:39 las drobilla: they are not installed system wide, never ever Jun 09 21:07:52 drobilla las: ok, well that doesn't count :) Jun 09 21:07:58 las drobilla: yes it bloody well does Jun 09 21:08:05 drobilla .... not really Jun 09 21:08:13 drobilla as far as build tools being usable for libraries anyway Jun 09 21:08:34 drobilla though you just have to append a bunch of flags, it's not that bad Jun 09 21:08:41 nedko the buffered stdout issue is getting really complex, i wonder whether we should force lash programs to disable stdout buffereing or we should use unbuffer trick or something like that Jun 09 21:08:50 drobilla says a lot about where scons is coming from though ;) Jun 09 21:09:15 drobilla ie windows style "fuck it we'll just build everything we need locally, libraries are stupid" land Jun 09 21:09:18 las drobilla: sure, it does say that Jun 09 21:09:29 las drobilla: but it doesn't say anything about ardour packaging Jun 09 21:10:01 drobilla las: I mean that way of building isn't suitable for distribution if it was building a library normally Jun 09 21:10:07 drobilla las: obviously for helpers it doesn't matter whatsoever Jun 09 21:10:29 drobilla I find it a bit retarded to pitch a next gen build system that can't even easily be used for shared library projects Jun 09 21:10:41 las nedko: but the whole point of .la files is .... busted Jun 09 21:10:54 las nedko: it exists to address a problem that doesn't exist on any interesting platform Jun 09 21:11:05 drobilla does anything remotely relevant even use those anymore anyway? Jun 09 21:11:19 las drobilla: libtool still does Jun 09 21:11:19 nedko las: i'm in no way fan of .la files, i dont even know how they really work Jun 09 21:11:46 las nedko: they exist because once there were some platforms where a shared library didn't contain enough information to do "good" run time linking Jun 09 21:11:47 drobilla las: are they required to link against a shared lib with libtool at all? Jun 09 21:12:03 las nedko: this pretty much came to an end at least 5 years ago, maybe more Jun 09 21:12:07 * drobilla thinks not Jun 09 21:12:08 las drobilla: no, they are not Jun 09 21:12:21 drobilla eff 'em then :) Jun 09 21:12:35 drobilla perhaps still useful for system installed static libs? Jun 09 21:12:48 las drobilla: they are of no use for static libs at all, AFAIK Jun 09 21:12:51 nedko so devil's work is void since 5 years? Jun 09 21:12:52 nedko :D Jun 09 21:13:01 drobilla las: dependencies? Jun 09 21:13:20 las nedko: something like that. if you still want to build for Irix from 8 years ago, then "Rock On libtool!" Jun 09 21:13:29 las drobilla: inferrable on every platform worth caring about Jun 09 21:13:53 las drobilla: they have to be because otehrwise static linking wouldn't work Jun 09 21:14:29 drobilla las: I don't think dependency information is in static libs Jun 09 21:14:33 drobilla las: could be wrong Jun 09 21:14:57 drobilla las: 'course this all carries the obvious disclaimer of: who actually installs/uses system wise static libs? :) Jun 09 21:15:05 nedko irix should be dead because sgi is dead, no? Jun 09 21:15:30 nedko althrough i used irix system 2 or 3 years ago Jun 09 21:15:37 drobilla if it isn't BSD or linux, it's dead :) Jun 09 21:15:58 nedko drobilla: macos is not bsd at all ;) Jun 09 21:16:17 drobilla or that So woul'nt be better to solve the initial issue at the right place? Stephane _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
