xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: TAKE - userspace

To: Hasch@xxxxxxxxxxx (Juergen Hasch)
Subject: Re: TAKE - userspace
From: "Nathan Scott" <nathans@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 09:31:39 +1000
Cc: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: Hasch@t-online.de (Juergen Hasch) "Re: TAKE - userspace" (Jul 22, 11:57am)
References: <200107200826.SAA36970@snort.melbourne.sgi.com> <15O3gO-0CJtrcC@fwd01.sul.t-online.com> <20010722184531.B224198@wobbly.melbourne.sgi.com> <15OFyw-18xRT6C@fwd06.sul.t-online.com>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
hi,

On Jul 22, 11:57am, Juergen Hasch wrote:
> Subject: Re: TAKE - userspace
> > ...
> > Having said all that, I do agree that the static libraries should
> > go into /usr/lib - its just a matter of coercing libtool to put them
> > there or changing our own install process - I'll have a look into it
> > sometime this week.
> 
> This is all I wanted to say before I got mislead in the technical details...
> Don't drink and email ;-)

:-)

> The patch below does work for me, it may be better to add symlinks
> of the libacl.so files to /usr/lib, too.
> 

OK, will do.

> ...Juergen
> 
> --- builddefs.in.orig Fri Jul 20 16:51:24 2001
> +++ builddefs.in      Sun Jul 22 10:44:11 2001

Yes, this was basically what I would've done too - I'm just
not sure what will happen if the libtool archive (.la file)
is installed into a different place to where its "supposed"
to go - if you cat the .la file, you will see what I mean
here (see "libdir=").

thanks.

-- 
Nathan


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>