From bug-octave-request at bevo dot che dot wisc dot edu Tue Dec  3 11:48:23 2002
Subject: compiling octave-2.1.40
From: "John W. Eaton" <jwe at bevo dot che dot wisc dot edu>
To: "Eugenio SEGUIN" <eseguin at idecom dot unsj dot edu dot ar>
Cc: bug-octave at bevo dot che dot wisc dot edu
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 11:48:20 -0600

On  3-Dec-2002, Eugenio SEGUIN <eseguin at idecom dot unsj dot edu dot ar> wrote:

| To: bug-octave at bevo dot che dot wisc dot edu
| Cc: eseguin
| Subject: compiling octave-2.1.40
| --------
| Bug report for Octave octave-2.1.40 configured for alphaev67-dec-
| 0sf5.1
| 
| Description:
| -----------
| The prlobem appears when run the make command
|  
|  
| Repeat-By:
| ---------
| make libcruft.a libcruft.so.2.1.40
| make[3]: Entering directory `/usr/users/eseguin/octave1/octave-
| 2.1.40/libcruft'
| make[3]: `libcruft.a' is up to date.
| rm -f libcruft.so
| g++ -shared -Xlinker -expect_unresolved -Xlinker '*' -Xlinker -
| soname -Xlinker 
| libcruft.so -o libcruft.so amos/dgamln.o amos/xzabs.o
| [...]

I'm going to assume that this was badly wrapped by a mailer, and that
the command is really

  g++ -shared -Xlinker -expect_unresolved -Xlinker '*' \
    -Xlinker -soname -Xlinker libcruft.so -o libcruft.so amos/dgamln.o ...

and that somehow the soname argument is not being interperted
correctly.  What happens if you change 

  SONAME_FLAGS = -Xlinker -soname -Xlinker $ at 

in the generated Makeconf file to be

  SONAME_FLAGS =

instead?  Does that avoid the problem?  Does anyone know the proper
way to spell this option on an Digital Unix/OSF-5.1 system?

Thanks,

jwe



-------------------------------------------------------------
Octave is freely available under the terms of the GNU GPL.

Octave's home on the web:  http://www.octave.org
How to fund new projects:  http://www.octave.org/funding.html
Subscription information:  http://www.octave.org/archive.html
-------------------------------------------------------------