Re: 'First Run' installation of Application support stuff?
Re: 'First Run' installation of Application support stuff?
- Subject: Re: 'First Run' installation of Application support stuff?
- From: Mike Ferris <email@hidden>
- Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 09:19:54 -0800
Actually, you can do either one or the other of the things you
mention...
Either link with all the frameworks, including any that would be
indirectly linked,
Or set everything up with absolute paths (making sure to link
everything with -headerpad_max_install_names) and use install_name_tool
later to fix the install names up to be relative.
The issue is that ld does not consult its -F flags when it needs to
find indirectly linked stuff (ie to find framework B when you link
framework A and A links B.)
Mike
Begin forwarded message:
From: <email@hidden>
Date: Fri Dec 20, 2002 1:59:59 PM US/Pacific
To: <email@hidden>
Cc: <email@hidden>
Subject: Re: 'First Run' installation of Application support stuff?
What you do is use the @executable_path linker support
...
You'll have to get trickier about things if, for example, you have
both
apps and command-line tools that link these frameworks since usually
the apps and command-line tools would not naturally be in locations
that would lend themselves to using the same relative path to locate
frameworks...
But things get near-impossible when you have a hierarchy of frameworks
linking against one another, because the (link-time) linker doesn't
understand @executable_path, only the run-time linker.
The only solution appears to be to ignore -install_name completely,
link
the app against all the frameworks (including those only transitively
linked) [NB I'm hypothesising here, based on one experiment yesterday],
and use install_name_tool to change the ref in the app to use
@executable_path.
Phil
_______________________________________________
cocoa-dev mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives:
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/cocoa-dev
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.