We're getting a bit off-list; if this loses connection to GCC we may want to move to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* IainS wrote on Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 09:42:29PM CEST: > On 10 Jun 2008, at 20:06, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: >> >> It doesn't do that because that breaks the abstraction. It might also >> increase a bit the risk of ending up with bits of the static library >> included, and bits of shared deplibs you use pulling in the shared >> version of the library. > > OK, I appreciate the first part; > I don't immediately understand how libfoo-static.a is any more > dangerous than libfoo.a > or libfoo-s.dylib .... libfoo.so Well, it's certainly not more or less dangerous than libfoo-s.dylib vs. libfoo.so. However, it's more dangerous than libfoo.a vs libfoo.so. For one, because usually libtool will uniquify listing identical -lfoo on the command line. > OK. - so the solution as I have it is in the right direction... (bar > removing the extra static lib). BTW, if it's decided to be like that: you can avoid bulding an extra lib_LTLIBRARIES on systems other than darwin by using lib_LTLIBRARIES += ... inside of an automake conditional. Cheers, Ralf
