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