Hi Peter!
Peter O'Gorman wrote:
Hmm, sorry that I am so late into the fray. Indeed the -static flag
should not require a .la file.
Agreed. This was an arbitrary and strange choice.
In my opinion, since libtool knows the library search paths, the
extension used for shared objects, the
On Wed, 3 Nov 2004, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
Hi Peter!
Peter O'Gorman wrote:
Hmm, sorry that I am so late into the fray. Indeed the -static flag
should not require a .la file.
Agreed. This was an arbitrary and strange choice.
This is an area where I agree with you. :-)
Bob
On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 12:39:10PM +, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
2) Is there a standard way to run configure that should build a
completely static binary?
Assuming libtool is doing all your linking:
./configure LDFLAGS='-all-static'
As I posted, that doesn't work. What does work is:
Hi Bill,
Bill Moseley wrote:
On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 12:39:10PM +, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
2) Is there a standard way to run configure that should build a
completely static binary?
Assuming libtool is doing all your linking:
./configure LDFLAGS='-all-static'
As I posted, that doesn't
Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
Considering Bob's posts about how static linking against system libraries
gets you a binary that might stop working if you move it to another
similar version, or upgrade your system... and considering that we already
extract a list of automatically linked libraries for each
Hi Peter,
Peter O'Gorman wrote:
Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
Considering Bob's posts about how static linking against system libraries
gets you a binary that might stop working if you move it to another
similar version, or upgrade your system... and considering that we
already
extract a list of
Libtool, however, is certainly doing the wrong thing wrt -static. We
haven't quite figured out what the right thing is though. Yet.
I'm not following the details of this discussion, but I'll add my
comment as an end-user and a casual developer.
As a developer I don't really care about the
Bill Moseley wrote:
I don't really understand why libxml2 got linked in statically and not
libz. I assume that's an issue in my Makefile.am file or how we setup
libz and libxml2 in our configure script.
It's probably because libxml2 itself is installed using libtool (and
thus there is a
Kevin P. Fleming wrote:
Bill Moseley wrote:
I don't really understand why libxml2 got linked in statically and not
libz. I assume that's an issue in my Makefile.am file or how we setup
libz and libxml2 in our configure script.
It's probably because libxml2 itself is installed using libtool (and
Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
I see. Maybe that's the same thing then, albeit a different algorithm.
The problem with doing it that way is this: when libtool encounters a native
(no .la) shared lib and links it, most modern platforms pull in the deplibs
automatically AIUI. This certainly isn't true of
10 matches
Mail list logo
