Libfool trouble

SDL Development
1

Hi folks,

since libfool isn’t suitable for clean crosscompiling (ie w/ sysroot)
and it doesn’t seem to be repareable in a considerable time, I’ve
started my own implementation. Of course there isn’t any clear
syntax specification, so I have to do what’s common to autoconf
folks: guess what may be meant …

Now I’ve got a problem with my syntax current exploration and SDL:
There seem to be several libraries, which are only built as .a
and are then linked together to libSDL.so.
I did not yet see any libfool option which decides whether to
build a static or dynamic library, nor whether to link statically
or dynamically.

How is this passed to libfool ?

cu–

Enrico Weigelt == metux IT service

phone: +49 36207 519931 www: http://www.metux.de/
fax: +49 36207 519932 email: contact at metux.de
cellphone: +49 174 7066481

– DSL ab 0 Euro. – statische IP – UUCP – Hosting – Webshops –

2

wtf is libfool ? do you mean libtool ?

libSDL cross-compiles just fine with normal cross-compile methods using
normal ./configure magic
-mikeOn Wednesday 07 September 2005 04:57 am, Enrico Weigelt wrote:

since libfool isn’t suitable for clean crosscompiling (ie w/ sysroot)

3
  • Mike Frysinger wrote:

Hi,

wtf is libfool ? do you mean libtool ?
exactly.
I tend to call it this way, since I regularily feel fooled by it …

libSDL cross-compiles just fine with normal cross-compile methods
using normal ./configure magic

ah, well, great. and could you tell me, how exactly ?

cu–

Enrico Weigelt == metux IT service

phone: +49 36207 519931 www: http://www.metux.de/
fax: +49 36207 519932 email: contact at metux.de
cellphone: +49 174 7066481

– DSL ab 0 Euro. – statische IP – UUCP – Hosting – Webshops –

4

How is this passed to libfool ?

When you say “libfool” are you attempting to make a derogatory reference
to “libtool”? If so, it just makes you look silly, as would references
to “Internet Exploder” or “Windoze” … trust me, no one dislikes the
autotools more than me, but let’s try to keep an air of professionalism
here.

–ryan.