Peculiar configure behavior

[Randy Chung]

Brian J. Tarricone wrote:
> it _does_ have --rpath /usr/local/xfce4/lib at the end (remember, in 
> this context, -R is the same as -rpath).  the problem is (presumably) 
> that the -R/usr/lib is before the -rpath /usr/local/xfce4/lib.  libtool 
> does some funky stuff when building the gcc commandline, so it may not 
> be possible to get the behaviour you want.  annoying stuff like this is 
> precisely why i firmly refuse to help people install xfce-stable in a 
> normal system location and xfce-cvs elsewhere: you just can't get 
> predictable results based on the variety of systems out there.

Ahh, I see what you mean now.  My mistake.  Interesting, interesting. 
I'm going to have to take a closer look at this if I expect to get 
anywhere, it seems; things are finally starting to cool down a bit 
around here.  I can understand your frustration with trying to get both 
trees installed at once, especially if you get things like "Hey CVS xfce 
sucks, nothing works!" or some such.  My goal is to put together a patch 
that'll let both trees exist together and not completely clobber each 
other; I think it'd be helpful for people who are using stable and are 
interested in contributing some code, but aren't familiar with the 
autobuild tools.

> my guess is that the -R/usr/lib is coming from libdbh's LDFLAGS (or some 
> other related var).  not sure how/if this guess helps though...

It looks like you might be on the right track there.  I'll take a closer 
look at this; I'm beginning to wonder if it's because libdbh's linker 
flags are included before xfce's linker flags are.  LIBDBH_LIBS in the 
Makefile looks suspiciously similar to the offending line in xfrun4_LDADD...

> hehe... for starters, i'd never use the word "simple" in anywhere near 
> the word "autoconf" ^_~.  the autoconf/automake stuff is arcane enough, 
> but when you add libtool into the mix, things get even more convoluted, 
> unfortunately.  i'm not so sure further digging will really yield you 
> any useful results.  i haven't looked at the Makefile.am files in 
> question, but maybe messing with the order of the @(whatever)_LDFLAGS@ 
> and @(whatever)_LDADD@ lines will help.  good luck!
> 
>    -brian
> 

Thanks for your help!  Hopefully your clues will help me get somewhere 
on this; if nothing else, my solution in the meantime is simply to edit 
the Makefiles by hand (since there's only three), so it's not too big a 
deal.  Ahh details details :)  Back to reading manpages...

--

Randy