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 behavior, and so on. Ugly. > How many packages/people use this? How many people have called other > autotools names because of interface changes?)
Absolutely.
In light of discussion so far, can we get consensus on leaving `-all-static'
as is, and making `-static' choose which system libraries to link dynamically
based on some other method than whether or not they have a .la file attached?
`-lt-static' was still-born, lets pretend I never said that ;-)
Cheers,
Gary.
--
Gary V. Vaughan ())_. [EMAIL PROTECTED],gnu.org}
Research Scientist ( '/ http://tkd.kicks-ass.net
GNU Hacker / )= http://www.gnu.org/software/libtool
Technical Author `(_~)_ http://sources.redhat.com/autobook
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Libtool mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
