On Thu, Apr 19, 2007 at 08:16:07PM +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > * Andreas Metzler wrote on Thu, Apr 19, 2007 at 08:02:36PM CEST: > > On 2007-04-19 Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > And libtool remembers by putting the library dependency into the > > > libconvenience.la file. > > > > And that is exactly what goes wrong. It does not put the library > > dependency in the la file, it puts the library dependency and *its* > > dependencies in the la file. > > D'oh. > > > > I sense that we are talking past each other all the time. > > > > I also get that feeling. > > Thanks for bearing with me, I feel a bit better now. > > OK, now that I (think I) understand the issue, I guess it's the right > thing for Debian libtool (with its link_all_deplibs=no) to also not link > against these indirect deplibs stemming from a convenience archive's > deplibs. This feature should be specific to systems with > link_all_deplibs=no, though. It can be pulled into upstream once the > indirect deplibs issues are fixed (one of them being that uninstalled > indirect deplibs aren't found).
So would the attached patch be acceptable for now? I'm thinking about adding that to the Debian patch. Kurt
--- ltmain.in.orig 2007-04-22 01:16:56.000000000 +0200 +++ ltmain.in 2007-04-22 01:18:57.000000000 +0200 @@ -2859,7 +2859,9 @@ # ... and its dependency_libs tmp_libs= for deplib in $dependency_libs; do - newdependency_libs="$deplib $newdependency_libs" + if test "$link_all_deplibs" != no; then + newdependency_libs="$deplib $newdependency_libs" + fi if test "X$duplicate_deps" = "Xyes" ; then case "$tmp_libs " in *" $deplib "*) specialdeplibs="$specialdeplibs $deplib" ;;
