Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
> On Mar 28, 2001, Nick Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > My main problem with changing need_lib_prefix is that its counter
> > intuitive to the user and actually breaks some pkgs in NetBSD pkgsrc
> > that have made the assumption that building a with -o name.la -module
> > results in an object of the form name.so.
>
> OTOH, no one should expect creating a name.la -module to result in
> name.so. There's no such guarantee. You can extract the lib name
> from the .la script, but, if you decide to guess it by yourself, you
> risk guessing wrong, and you can't blame libtool for that.
I understand that and I'm not blaming libtool. Unfortunately it seems
that hardly anyone reads the documentation and so they expect certain
behaviour. The naming of modules is an example. I am suggesting that
libtool adopt the principle of least surprises and make name.la -module
produce name.so wherever possible.
Is this unreasonable?
Nick
--
aka [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Libtool mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
