On Monday 31 August 2009 15:56:06 Kurt Roeckx wrote: > On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 08:55:21PM +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > * Kurt Roeckx wrote on Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 10:31:39PM CEST: > > > I've mailed about this issue before. What I think needs to > > > happen, and have proposed before, is: > > > - The .la file should only contain the libraries the current > > > library links to > > > > That will make it impossible to support static linking against libraries > > which do not themselves provide .la files. We cannot do this upstream. > > I don't see how it's different than what we have now. > > If I understand what you're trying to say is: > - The lib we're making now, liba, links to libb > - libb itself does not have a .la file > - to link to libb staticly, you also need to link to other > libraries. > > Either you provided libb's depedencies when linking liba or > not, what is going to be in liba.la is going to be the same. > > And if you really want static linking to work properly, > you need some way to find out what libraries libb requires, > be that with a libb.la or libb.pc file.
and Ralf is pointing out that by trimming dependency_libs, you're breaking libb.la when linking libb statically via libtool. if there is no libb.la, then the issue is irrelevant because we arent talking about libtool scripts. - mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
