On Mon, Sep 26, 2005 at 04:15:11PM +, Olly Betts wrote:
> On 2005-09-23, Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [ By the way, I don't think everyone in this discussion has subscribed
> > this list; if in doubt, speak up, or even better, set Mail-Followup-To:
> > next time ]
>
> I'm fol
branch-1-5
Could someone explain why the libtool generated in the test dirs
are different than the one in the build dir?
Or more importanbtly, why a software package using ltmain.sh from 1.5.21a
would build a libtool that didn't work but copying libtool from
my libtool build dir would work. The
Hi folks,
how does libtool decide whether to link against an .la library
dynamically vs. statically ?
I'm currently working on my own implementation, since libtool
doesn't suit my needs (ie. sysroot'ed building), but I didn't
find any clear specification for libtool's behaviour.
cu
--
Sorry for the self-followup.
* Ralf Wildenhues wrote on Mon, Sep 26, 2005 at 09:02:03AM CEST:
> * Tim Rice wrote:
> >
> > CVS HEAD
> >
> > Is there any reason not to have ltmain.in in the source tree
> > at configure time and generate ltmain.sh (from ltmain.in) in
> > the build tree?
>
> Please
On 2005-09-23, Peter O'Gorman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have no statistics for how many shared libraries are written in c++ but do
> not take advantage of the standard c++ library, at a guess I'd say that the
> majority use some libstdc++ features.
It's perhaps worth noting that not linking l
On 2005-09-22, Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Olly Betts wrote on Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 11:00:30PM CEST:
>> The bottom line for me is that if I explicitly add "-lstdc++" when
>> linking _xapian.so, it all works. If I don't, it doesn't. So I
>> kind of feel that ideally libtool shou
On 2005-09-23, Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [ By the way, I don't think everyone in this discussion has subscribed
> this list; if in doubt, speak up, or even better, set Mail-Followup-To:
> next time ]
I'm following it on gmane, but an explicit Cc: isn't a problem.
> * Jacob Meus
Hi Tim,
* Tim Rice wrote:
>
> CVS HEAD
>
> Is there any reason not to have ltmain.in in the source tree
> at configure time and generate ltmain.sh (from ltmain.in) in
> the build tree?
Please try the patch from
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-libtool/2005-08/msg00039.html
> I'd like to b
