One of the coolest features (I thought) of libtool was it's ability to
allow specification of only the .la files directly required by a library or
program when linking.
I had code that used libtool 2.2 a while back that worked fine this way. A
program P required library A.la, which itself required
On Thu, 21 Jun 2018, John Calcote wrote:
After upgrading to libtool 2.4.2, I find that I now have to specify the
additional secondary .la files that are listed in the primary .la files'
dependency_libs property, or I get a link error indicating missing DSOs on
the command line (and I can see tha
On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 11:56 AM Bob Friesenhahn <
bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us> wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2018, John Calcote wrote:
> >
> > After upgrading to libtool 2.4.2, I find that I now have to specify the
> > additional secondary .la files that are listed in the primary .la files'
> > depend
Hi Bob. It's an ubuntu distro release - Linux Mint 18. Why would they do
that?
On Thu, Jun 21, 2018, 9:56 AM Bob Friesenhahn
wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2018, John Calcote wrote:
> >
> > After upgrading to libtool 2.4.2, I find that I now have to specify the
> > additional secondary .la files that a
On Thu, 21 Jun 2018, Paul T. Bauman wrote:
This is correct and bit us as well when Debian-based systems changed this.
Our very hackish work around was to insert the following in our configure.ac
immediately after AC_OUTPUT():
perl -pi -e 's/link_all_deplibs=no/link_all_deplibs=yes/' libtool
O
On Thu, 21 Jun 2018, John Calcote wrote:
Hi Bob. It's an ubuntu distro release - Linux Mint 18. Why would they do
that?
GNU Linux and the GNU linker support implicit library dependencies.
When a library which implicit library dependencies is linked, the
libraries it depends on to successfull
