* Jacob Meuser wrote on Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 01:07:20AM CET: > On Tue, Nov 16, 2004 at 11:00:34PM +0000, Scott James Remnant wrote: > > On Tue, 2004-11-16 at 11:15 -0800, Jacob Meuser wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 16, 2004 at 03:02:55PM +0000, Scott James Remnant wrote: > > > > Actually, I'd say the opposite is true ... the LONGER link line, > > > > produced by the current Libtool, is what allows people to get away with > > > > this because Libtool puts more stuff into the link line. > > > > > > > > A shorter, more concise, link line actually forces people to make sure > > > > they *do* link anything they require themselves, rather than relying on > > > > Libtool to do the right thing for them. > > > > > > but where does the problem show up? on !Linux, because Linux will > > > "do the right thing". > > > > > No, on Linux ... because Linux does the right thing and causes the > > applications to break; whereas Libtool does the wrong thing and links > > the application directly with half the libraries on the system. > > from my understanding, correct me if I'm wrong,
Can you also be bothered to read [EMAIL PROTECTED] again? For archive users, that is message http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libtool/2004-11/msg00319.html > on Linux, to the linker, all library deplibs do not need to be > specified ACK. > on other systems, to the linker, all library deplibs do need to be > specified. On some other systems. > libtool is to handle this transparently, just specify the library, > and, if needed, libtool will add the deplibs. That's what libtool does for every system right now, not only if needed. Scotts keybuk-linux-deplibs.patch would change this behavior on linux. > am I right so far? I think so. > so when libtool fails to complete the deplibs (I still haven't seen > any explanation for what happens when one of the deplibs is a > non-libtool library), where is there breakage? not on Linux, because > it doesn't need the deplibs anyway. No breakage. Developer education: "There exist other systems with linkers that need dependencies explicitly specified." This education method is not foolproof, however, thus the proposed change. > how would linux cause the application to break if there was a deplib > explicitly specified? Read the message above. Regards, Ralf _______________________________________________ Libtool mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool