Opened 16 years ago
Closed 9 years ago
#2547 closed defect (fixed)
target make install do links in wrong order
Reported by: | beltegeuse | Owned by: | warmerdam |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | normal | Milestone: | 1.8.1 |
Component: | ConfigBuild | Version: | 1.5.2 |
Severity: | normal | Keywords: | mingw make install |
Cc: |
Description
when doing a "make install" on Mingw/MSys platform, sub-target install-lib do these:
- install libgdal.dll in destdir/libgdal.dll.1.5.2
- link destdir/libgdal.dll.1 to destdir/libgdal.dll, and exit with an error.
Looking in GNumakefile I see that linking are in wrong order:
install-lib: some instructions $(INSTALL_LIB) $(GDAL_SLIB) $(DESTDIR)$(INST_LIB)/$(GDAL_SLIB_B).$(GDAL_VER) (cd $(DESTDIR)$(INST_LIB) ; \ ln -s $(GDAL_SLIB_B).$(GDAL_VERSION_MAJOR) $(GDAL_SLIB_B) (cd $(DESTDIR)$(INST_LIB) ; \ ln -s $(GDAL_SLIB_B).$(GDAL_VER) $(GDAL_SLIB_B).$(GDAL_VERSION_MAJOR))
and it should be :
install-lib: some instructions $(INSTALL_LIB) $(GDAL_SLIB) $(DESTDIR)$(INST_LIB)/$(GDAL_SLIB_B).$(GDAL_VER) (cd $(DESTDIR)$(INST_LIB) ; \ ln -s $(GDAL_SLIB_B).$(GDAL_VER) $(GDAL_SLIB_B).$(GDAL_VERSION_MAJOR)) (cd $(DESTDIR)$(INST_LIB) ; \ ln -s $(GDAL_SLIB_B).$(GDAL_VERSION_MAJOR) $(GDAL_SLIB_B))
Change History (3)
follow-up: 2 comment:1 by , 16 years ago
Milestone: | → 1.5.3 |
---|---|
Status: | new → assigned |
comment:2 by , 16 years ago
Replying to warmerdam:
I have corrected this in trunk (r15237). I presume this only impacts the msys/mingw platform because the ln command requires a target to exist to link to it with MSYS?
I'll try and take this back to 1.5 branch if the change applied looks right to you.
Yes you're right on MSYS ln command as same as cp command.
comment:3 by , 9 years ago
Resolution: | → fixed |
---|---|
Status: | assigned → closed |
Seems to be fixed long time ago.
Note:
See TracTickets
for help on using tickets.
I have corrected this in trunk (r15237). I presume this only impacts the msys/mingw platform because the ln command requires a target to exist to link to it with MSYS?
I'll try and take this back to 1.5 branch if the change applied looks right to you.