automake vs. GNU make [LWN.net]

automake vs. GNU make

Posted Feb 8, 2008 5:42 UTC (Fri) by lovelace (guest, #278)
In reply to: automake vs. GNU make by stevenj
Parent article: LCA: Disintermediating distributions

Again, you're blaming the tool for the complexity of the underlying problem.

But, isn't this tool supposed to take care of the underlying complexity? So, haven't you completely invalidated your argument for it? It's supposed to make the task of creating libraries similar across dissimilar systems yet by your own description it does not.

I don't remember all the details now since it's been a while, but back when we were trying to port KDE 3.x to native Qt on the Mac libtool was a constant source of problems.

(Log in to post comments)

automake vs. GNU make

Posted Feb 8, 2008 7:19 UTC (Fri) by aleXXX (subscriber, #2742) [Link]

libtool on the Mac (a native binary for dealing with libraries on the 
Mac) is something different than the autotools libtool (portable shell 
script which should deal with shared libs on all systems).

Alex

automake vs. GNU make

Posted Feb 8, 2008 16:05 UTC (Fri) by lovelace (guest, #278) [Link]

Hi Alex!

Yep, I'm aware of that, but that's not what I was referring to.  I was referring to the
autotools libtool.  Unfortunately, like I said, that was about 5 years ago and I cannot
remember the specifics.  So, rather than make more unsubstantiated accusations, I'll just
leave it at that.  I will mention, though, that that episode in particular cemented my general
dislike of the autotools libtool that still stands to this day.

automake vs. GNU make

Posted Feb 8, 2008 21:26 UTC (Fri) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

It reduces the complexity, but fundamentally these systems have different 
*runtime* semantics, which can't be entirely hidden. For simple uses 
(DT_NEEDED-style simple symbol lookup of libraries with no undefined 
symbols, and dlopen()/dlsym()/dlclose()-style dynamic loading), libtool 
does a good job. Anything more complex will hit trouble on one system or 
another.

automake vs. GNU make

Posted Feb 8, 2008 21:46 UTC (Fri) by lovelace (guest, #278) [Link]

Ah, now I'm remembering more about what the problems where.

1. Shared libraries and modules are the same on Linux (and lots of other Unices) but are
different on the Mac.  Libtool had a difficult time understanding this.
2. Until fairly recently (Tiger, iirc) shared libraries couldn't be easily dlopened on the
mac, only modules could.

Since KDE makes extensive use of dlopen-ing modules to accomplish things this made things
quite tricky and libtool wasn't really that much help.

So, yeah, quite a different runtime system.  Newer versions of OS X have gotten quite a bit
better on the dlopen-ing front, but they are still fundamentally different.  And, I wouldn't
even try to use libtool to create OS X frameworks....

automake vs. GNU make

Posted Feb 8, 2008 23:18 UTC (Fri) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

I'd expect MacOS X support for modules to have been OK since

2003-03-20  Peter O'Gorman  <peter@pogma.com>

        * ltmain.in: Always use $echo not echo for consistency.
        Changes for darwin building. Warn if linking against libs linked
        with -module. Use module_cmds if available and building a module,
        move convenience double lib check,

What else is wrong?

And, yes, your point 2 is hard for libltdl to overcome: if you build the 
library as a lib, not a module, you'd have been stuck whatever libtool 
did.