> > 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
That is not okay with me, somebody who says I always want to link against the newest version is on his own. The one who knows what he is doing should use the libname with a release infix ... :) > for that one if you say -lxx. It is not actually the same > as having a versioned library install, ye know. You are absolutely right for the shared libs but for the static libs I don't know of any other way to version them than with a verision part in the name. > 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. That would be indeed quite comfortable. > 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 be alright for me, too. > Well, is that the style all the others do think of > when turning to versioned library installs?? I am interested in the opionions here, too ... _______________________________________________ Libtool mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
