On 2016-02-12 21:59, Vadim Zeitlin wrote: > Peter Rosin writes: >> On 2016-02-11 00:38, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: >>> It indicates that the build configuration has agreed to supply any >>> additional dependency libraries if there otherwise would be undefined >>> symbols. >> >> Well said, I would also like to add that libtool -no-undefined *does* *not* >> imply ld --no-undefined. > > This is, of course, a bug. I don't even know if it's worth continuing to > argue because I don't have anything new to add to what I had already > written and it is IMO quite obvious to any user of libtool that it should > imply it, yet most people here seem to consider it as a feature.
The feature here is to not break packages. Changing libtool -no-undefined to imply ld --no-undefined -- at this point -- is not an option IMHO. Also, libtool added -no-undefined before ld added --no-undefined, so some might argue that you are barking up the wrong tree if you think things are inconsistent. Not that shifting blame is going solve anything... Cheers, Peter _______________________________________________ https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
