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
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
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.
I have been through this before. I have a post[1] from May where I
discuss building our
On Tuesday 02 November 2004 06:39, 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.
I have been through this before.
30 matches
Mail list logo
