Hi Gary, Thanks for the reply!
* Gary Kumfert wrote on Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 08:02:06PM CET: > On Fri, 13 Jan 2006, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > * Gary Kumfert wrote on Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 09:07:52PM CET: > > > > > > I'm learning that libtool 1.5.22 "fixed" the -static flag so that > > > static libraries are linked in the build directory, but > > > shared libraries in the install directory. But I don't > > > understand why this is considered "better" behavior. > > > > The discussion was controversial: > > > The side-effect is that libtool behaves very > > > differently between "make check" and "make installcheck" > > > ...particularly in my case, since the libraries being linked > > > have #ifdef PIC preprocessor directives in their source. > > > > Yep. Not very nice. Matches the documentation though, and the > > pre-1.5 behavior of libtool, quoting (Link mode): > So, you changed behavior that's been established for years > only because the documentation and code differed? No. > Wouldn't it have been easier to just fix the documentation? As far as I know, in fact the behavior we have now had been established for years, and documented, up to 1.4.x. Then came 1.5.x and changed the implementation -- I must admit to not know the reason now -- but not the docs. Users were surprised at the "new" semantics and complained. We changed back. So now you complained (rightfully) -- same thing again, other way round. > > > 2. Is there another way to make just the libtool libraries static > > > after they've been installed? > > > > I don't understand this question. What is the reason that prevented you > > from creating just a static library for these ones in the first place? > > Yes, I suppose I didn't give enough information to motivate why I want to > do what I do... I was hoping there was some "undocumented" backward > compatibility feature. Oh, ok. Thanks for the description, by the way. I do have an old version of babel lying around, but keep forgetting about its internals. > > > 3. Could there be an alternative way to structure the libraries? > > > > I haven't yet fully grasped your needs. A couple of questions in > > return: > > > > - Would it be sufficient if libtool implemented per-deplib > > `-Bstatic/-Bdynamic' (whatever they're called) switches? > > I can imagine this may be useful (you can never have too much > control when you really need it), but its unnecessarily complex > for my immediate needs. Generally, our users either want all > dynamic-loaded modules for flexibility (&access from interpreted > languages), or all static for speed. OK, good. > > - The former is not so easy to implement, so: as an easier measure, > > were the former 1.5.x semantics of `-static' exactly those you > > needed? Maybe we should just implement another option to get > > those semantics again, as you suggested above. I wouldn't name > > it `-lt-static' though. Maybe `-static-libtool-libs' would fit > > better, but it's rather long. > > Yes. I think this would be fine. I'll leave it to you to > pick the name. I'm only going to write it once in a sed > command to my Makefiles. OK. Would you be willing to write and/or test a patch to this extent? It shouldn't be hard: the patch that changed to the current behavior is very small (see referenced threads). Writing a test to make sure it works as designed would be very helpful. Cheers, Ralf _______________________________________________ http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
