Charles Wilson wrote: > I have a library that I want to build shared (let's call it "libbfd"). > It depends on a portability library that is currently built as a > non-libtool, static library (let's call it "libiberty"). <g>
I completely understand the motivation for the meat of this, speaking in the hypothetical sense, but why would you ever want to build libbfd shared? It is always built static by default even on ELF systems, for the same reason as libiberty - it is not expected to expose anything resembling a stable or maintained ABI. And its maintainers do not want the burden of having to maintain an ABI given its history of not being designed as such. So it seems like a really bad idea to jump through hoops to make it shared, as you'd end up with the situation you mentioned dozens of cygbfd-<long string>.dll files to satisfy all the various consumers. Brian _______________________________________________ http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
