On Mon, 1 Nov 2004, Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote:
We're pleased to announce the release of Automake 1.9.3.
This is a bug-fix release, the list of bugs fixed is appended.
Hi,
I just fetched and built automake-1.9.3. During make check I got the same
three unexpected FAIL's as for 1.9.2. Tho output is
Hi Bill,
Bill Moseley wrote:
Sorry for the cross post, not sure which is the correct list.
My project builds a library and then builds a binary and links to that
library. Someone has asked how to build a completely static binary.
$ libtool --help --mode=link | grep static
-all-static
On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 12:39:10PM +, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
$ libtool --help --mode=link | grep static
-all-static do not do any dynamic linking at all
-static do not do any dynamic linking of libtool libraries
And that seems to work if I place those in my Makefile.am
On Tue, 2 Nov 2004, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
Unless someone shouts me down, then according to the principle of least
surprise, I'm inclined to change the semantics to:
-static do not do any dynamic linking at all
-lt-staticdo not do any dynamic linking of libtool libraries
(We can keep
On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 08:35:27AM -0600, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
The main purpose of building a completely static program is to satisfy
security or system bootstrap requirements (/usr partition not
mounted). It is not always possible to build a completely static
program. It is not usually
On Tue, 2 Nov 2004, Bill Moseley wrote:
On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 08:35:27AM -0600, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
The main purpose of building a completely static program is to satisfy
security or system bootstrap requirements (/usr partition not
mounted). It is not always possible to build a completely
Hi Bob!
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Tue, 2 Nov 2004, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
Unless someone shouts me down, then according to the principle of least
surprise, I'm inclined to change the semantics to:
-static do not do any dynamic linking at all
-lt-staticdo not do any dynamic
Hi Bill,
Bill Moseley wrote:
$ grep -- -static src/Makefile.am
libtest_LDFLAGS = -static
(which maybe answers your question if anyone is using -static)
Not really. See my other post to this thread.
I'm not using AC_DISABLE_STATIC in configure -- and using
--enable-static
* Bill Moseley wrote on Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 03:33:02PM CET:
On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 12:39:10PM +, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
$ libtool --help --mode=link | grep static
-all-static do not do any dynamic linking at all
-static do not do any dynamic linking of libtool
On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 03:44:20PM +, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
$ ./configure --prefix=$HOME/static LD_FLAGS='-all-static' /dev/null make
install /dev/null
just LDFLAGS ^^^
It's one of those mornings.
$ ./configure --prefix=$HOME/static LDFLAGS='-all-static'
On Tue, 2 Nov 2004, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
This seems like a particularly bad idea to me. What is the value of
changing existing documented libtool behavior?
Consistency, and user expectation. Looking through the archives I see the
repeated question of why -static still links shared libraries
On Tue, 2 Nov 2004, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Is that a mail-only typo? You used LD_FLAGS instead of LDFLAGS.
But then, configure will most likely fail soon, before libtool is even
involved -- the compiler will see -all-static and barf.
There's been discussion about this on this list about
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 04:33:45PM CET:
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Tue, 2 Nov 2004, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
This seems like a particularly bad idea to me. What is the value of
changing existing documented libtool behavior?
Consistency, and user expectation.
Replying to myself after reading more of the thread...
Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
The main purpose of building a completely static program is to satisfy
security or system bootstrap requirements (/usr partition not mounted).
It is not always possible to build a
Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
Are these assumptions good?
i) people who specify -static to libtool don't want to link against
any dynamic libraries, and are suprised that isn't actually the case.
ii) the -static option is not used to mean `link static libtool libraries,
and dynamic
Hi Bob, Ralf!
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Tue, 2 Nov 2004, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Is that a mail-only typo? You used LD_FLAGS instead of LDFLAGS.
But then, configure will most likely fail soon, before libtool is even
involved -- the compiler will see -all-static and barf.
There's been
Hi Ralf,
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Besides, it's a clear change of published interface (this doesn't mean
I'm for or against the change. Just needs to be marked VERY VERY big.
Users of former Libtool-type `-static' will need to use
libtool --version
in order to differentiate old and new
On Tue, 2 Nov 2004, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
Boiling down to:
How do we sensibly figure out which libraries need to be linked dynamically
in the face of -static?
This would normally be the list of libraries that the C compiler
provides by default when linking. Unfortunately, GCC 3 has confused
Hey Bruce!
Bruce Korb wrote:
``-static'' needs to imply the common and ordnary meaning of ``static''.
libtool is a less common and ordinary command than either gcc or ld.
It is not a directly obvious thing that you would need to add the qualifier
all- to it in order to actually get static
19 matches
Mail list logo
