Frank Kemmer wrote:
>
> Wouldn't it be nice, if libtool had versioned the '.a' files, too, if the
> -release option
> is given? Or may be another option -staticlib-release?
>
> This is just a question? Or is there another style of versioning intended
> for the
> static libs?
>
we had a talk about that just a few days ago on this list.
Look closer, you do not only get libxx-2.1.so.0 but you also
get some libxx.so file - and the compiler will *only* look
for that one if you say -lxx. It is not actually the same
as having a versioned library install, ye know.
And yes, it definitly hurts for us multi-build guys who
have some versioning in the name but each and every
build will try to install a libxx.a and libxx.so.
I would be even partly satisfied if one could suppress
these two for specific builds.
Still, I'd like to see a --variant name, something like
a $suffix but just attached to the base name, i.e.
libname_spec='lib$name$variant' all over the place
instead of the current detour via $release to take
advantage of soname_spec='$libname$release.so.$major'
That would make it to specify --variant 64 --relase x11 to
generate libxxx64-x11.so.0 and libxxx64.so, and yes,
I'm perfectly fine with telling all later links to do
some -lxxx64 as well - most probaby via autoconf
substitutes as variant=64, ac_subst(variant), and using
--variant @variant@ for the one lib and the other link
line to take -lxxx@variant@ to be able to see it.
Well, is that the style all the others do think of
when turning to versioned library installs??
-- guido
_______________________________________________
Libtool mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
