[GRASS5] [firstname.lastname@example.org: Re: grass autoconf]
neteler at geog.uni-hannover.de
Thu Apr 27 09:02:19 EDT 2000
On Wed, Apr 26, 2000 at 09:52:46AM +0200, Michel Wurtz - ENGEES/CEREG wrote:
> About Grass Makefile/Compilation : I once (time of 4.2.0 ?) modified
> the makefiles in order to made dynamic libraries (libxxx.so) instead
> of static ones (libxxx.a). All the .so files were put in a "lib" directory
> at the same level than etc, dev, bin, scripts, ...
> The whole binary tree took about one third of the space of the regular
> binary distribution. It ran also faster (launch time reduced).
> If I remember correctly it took me about 3 or 4 nights to figure
> out what to do, how to do it, automatically edit (shell + ed scripts),
> which took many hours on my poor Pentium 100 box :-) and test the
> resulting compilation (which was also a long process !)
this sounds very promising. What about changing GRASS 5 to
dynamic libraries? Are there any restrictions (beside the
missing time, we all have)?
> I was forced to modify *all* the makefile, src/CMD/generic/make.mid
> in addition to src/CMD/head/linux because the previous makefile sheme
> was a little bit rigid. I wonder if it is still the case, and if one
> can add a flag in configure option sto use dynamic libraries when
Michel, it would be great if you could provide these patches!
I hope you still have your old code there to diff against
> On system that can do that (Linux, Solaris and probably some others),
> the benefits are evident for the binary distribution. Of course,
> this should be avoided for development, since you want be able to
> run a debugger, hence use static libs.
This should be a flag for "configure".
If you want to unsubscribe from GRASS Development
Team internal mailing list write to:
minordomo at geog.uni-hannover.de with
subject 'unsubscribe grass5'
More information about the grass-dev