Charles Wilson <libtool <at> cwilson.fastmail.fm> writes:

> >  A more interesting question is if the current situation with libtool can
> > be improved because I continue to believe that getting a static library
> > when you're trying to build a shared one can be very unexpected. And this
> > can be the case even under Unix where there would be presumably too much
> > resistance to change the way --disable-static works if it is controversial
> > even under Windows where I thought it would be "obviously correct".
> > 
> >  So it seems the only solution with any chance of acceptance would be to
> > add a different option doing what I want, e.g. --enable-shared-only. Or
> > maybe allow --enable-shared=(yes|no|only)?
> 
> No, I think --disable-static, if specified, should actually *disable
> static*.  That should be sufficient.
> 
> If it's not doing that, then it's a bug IMO.

 Just to confirm: no, currently it doesn't do this. The example of my
original message came from libxml2 build configured with --disable-static.

 So should I try to create a patch making libtool fail in this case?

 Thanks,
VZ



_______________________________________________
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool

Reply via email to