[Xastir] ./configure issue

[C. Griffin]

On Apr 13, 2009, at 15:34, Bob Nielsen wrote:

> OS X has no ldconfig command (nor does it show up in a macports  
> search).  I don't know if there is an equivalent.

I did a google search and found this old email message from five years  
back.

> On Wed, Feb 11, 2004 at 09:05:03PM -0800, JongAm Park wrote:
> > Hello.
> >
> > Many Unix/Linux source codes and their configure script often
> > requires ldconfig.
>
> That's poor design on the part of the developers.  The whole point of
> autoconf (which generates the configure script) is to make the program
> compile on as many platforms as possible, and ldconfig is not on all
> platforms...
>
> However, I think that "Many" may be a little misleading, as it should
> only be checked for by packages that install shared libraries, normal
> programs shouldn't care about ldconfig.
>
> > However I couldn't find the ldconfig. I even tried the Fink.
> >
> > No ldconfig is there on Mac?
>
> No, there isn't.  But it's not necessary for proper installation/ 
> running
> of programs.  According to the ldconfig man page:
>
> 	ldconfig creates the necessary links and cache (for use by the run- 
> time
> 	linker, ld.so) to the most recent shared libraries found in the   
> direc-
> 	tories  specified on the command line, in the file /etc/ld.so.conf,  
> and
> 	in the trusted directories (/usr/lib and /lib).
>
> Well, MacOS doesn't use ld.so, it uses dyld (AFAICT, ld.so is for  
> a.out
> and ELF binaries, but MacOS uses Mach-O, but I may be confused as to
> thier relation to the link loader.)
>
> Anyway, you should be able to run and install programs without  
> ldconfig,
> but you'll need to hack the configure scripts/Makefiles to remove
> the references.  If there are references to ldconfig, however, I'd  
> think
> that you would probably have to do more work on the way the programs  
> are
> generated, since I would doubt that they would generate the libraries
> properly on MacOS, but YMMV.
>
> But hey, that's why the list is unix-porting and not unix-compiling,
> right ;)

And this further reply.

> Far easier would be to make a symbolic link to create a ldconfig  
> that does
> nothing.  Then the scripts that call ldconfig work without  
> modification.
>
> 	ln -s /usr/bin/true /usr/local/bin/ldconfig
> 		or perhaps for scripts that hard code the path to ldconfig
> 	ln -s /usr/bin/true /sbin/ldconfig
>

Hope this helps.




-- Chip
      n1mie at mac.com