On 3-okt-2005, at 16:56, Stephen Langer wrote:
I don't know if this is possible, although I'd guess it is not.
That's too bad. Is there a reason for it? I'd volunteer to work on modifying distutils so that it can build a .dylib, but I am not an expert on library formats. I don't really know the difference between a .so and a .dylib, except that one of them works and the other doesn't. Can someone point me in the direction of a good reference on the topic?
I'd guess that nobody has needed this functionality badly enough to volunteer extending distutils :-).
The main difference between a .so and a .dylib is that the former is
a bundle and the latter is a dylib. Dynamic libraries and loadable
objects are two different beasts on OS X. See the manpages for ld(1) and Mach- O(5) for more information.
W.r.t. extending distutils: extending the 'clib' might be the best way, although I must say that I've never used that command.