Re: [reSIProcate] Move to autotools ;)
On 22/05/12 16:13, Douglas Hubler wrote:
> On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Daniel Pocock <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> If you like, you can build a release tarball (it is very easy, just run
>> build/release-tarball.sh) and then unpack the tarball somewhere and try
>> to use it
>
> Great, you've used the automake dist target.
>
>> So far we've verified that the autotools build is almost completely
>> automatic on Debian, Ubuntu, Solaris (using SunPro), and MacOS - if you
>> can verify other platforms, that is also good.
>
> This works out good, Centos/Fedora is my area of concentration.
>
>>> On a related note, I just committed build integration for resiprocate
>>> to the sipXecs. I took svn rev 9367 before any autotools work. I
>>> forked the spec file, but I imagine this will be in flux as the work
>>> to autotools continues so I'll hang on to my patches there.
>>>
>>> https://github.com/dhubler/sipxecs/commit/3df7aac3397f525ab5ec8028d18a95777c7915f8
>>
>> Is this something you were going to push back into the resiprocate repo,
>> or you just maintain your own fork of the spec file externally?
>
> contribute back definitely. I should have written "hang on to my
> patches for now"
>
>> Filenames and some locations also change, e.g. the libs now have names
>> like librutil-1.8.so rather than just librutil.so
>
> libtool (assuming you're using that) should generate both, but ok.
Actually, it generates a file called librutil-1.8.so and a symlink
librutil.so -> librutil-1.8.so
so that compiled binaries will link to librutil-1.8.so, but developers
can just add -lrutil to their linker command line
This is the normal libtool behavior (s7.4 of the libtool manual) when
using the -release flag instead of -version-info