On 2012-07-21 14:49, Vincent Torri wrote: > On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Peter Rosin <p...@lysator.liu.se> wrote: >> On 2012-07-21 13:16, Vincent Torri wrote: >>> another solution is to just kill the stupid .la file. There is >> >> I don't think the .la file is stupid as it lists other important >> dependencies. > > so what ? There is a HUGE problem, here. Currently, if a lib uses > symbols in libuuid, it just can't be used to create progs/shared lib > because the .la file lists it while it should (must) not. Static libs > must not appear in the dependency_libs field.
Oh, but static libs do need to be listed in dependency_libs as long as there is no other place to put them. That, or static linking is not working well at all. I'm not willing to sacrifice static linking. >>> absolutely NO reason to add to the linker static libraries that are >>> ONLY used in my Evil library and that are not used elsewhere. >>> >>> I think that it is the best solution >> >> That disables (easy) static linking. I, as a library author, do not >> like to make that policy decision for the application author. > > on Windows DLL are good. I already pass --disable-static to all my > Windows builds. That has been argued elsewhere, but I can still see the value of the other side. So again, I, as a library author, do not like to shove that policy decision down the throat of my library consumers. Cheers, Peter _______________________________________________ https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
