On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 07:31:38PM +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > Hello Kurt, all, > > Thanks for the patch. > > * Kurt Roeckx wrote on Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 01:22:30AM CEST: > > > > So would the attached patch be acceptable for now? I'm thinking about > > adding that to the Debian patch. > > Hmm. It breaks when -static is used. > > Here's how I tested your patch, as a new test against the testsuite of > CVS HEAD (apologies, but I rather prefer writing new tests for HEAD; > the patch contains two tests; the first one belongs to this bug). > If you're inclined, here's how you can use HEAD's new testsuite with > an 1.5.x libtool: get CVS HEAD, bootstrap and compile it. Then run > > make check-local TESTSUITEFLAGS="-v -d -x -k indirect \ > LIBTOOL=/path/to/the/1.5.x/libtool"
This is a great trick, thanks! > Both of those two tests work with Debian's current libtool, but break > with your patch. Note that they also break if -static is used for all > libraries (add LDFLAGS=-static to TESTSUITEFLAGS to try out), rather > than only to the final ones. Right, so the problem is with static libraries. And the solution I had in mind was that it needs to look at the .la files recursivly. It doesn't seem to be doing this. Kurt
