On Tuesday 01 September 2009 12:33:09 Kurt Roeckx wrote: > On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 04:38:04PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Monday 31 August 2009 15:56:06 Kurt Roeckx wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 08:55:21PM +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > > > * Kurt Roeckx wrote on Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 10:31:39PM CEST: > > > > > I've mailed about this issue before. What I think needs to > > > > > happen, and have proposed before, is: > > > > > - The .la file should only contain the libraries the current > > > > > library links to > > > > > > > > That will make it impossible to support static linking against > > > > libraries which do not themselves provide .la files. We cannot do > > > > this upstream. > > > > > > I don't see how it's different than what we have now. > > > > > > If I understand what you're trying to say is: > > > - The lib we're making now, liba, links to libb > > > - libb itself does not have a .la file > > > - to link to libb staticly, you also need to link to other > > > libraries. > > > > > > Either you provided libb's depedencies when linking liba or > > > not, what is going to be in liba.la is going to be the same. > > > > > > And if you really want static linking to work properly, > > > you need some way to find out what libraries libb requires, > > > be that with a libb.la or libb.pc file. > > > > and Ralf is pointing out that by trimming dependency_libs, you're > > breaking libb.la when linking libb statically via libtool. if there is > > no libb.la, then the issue is irrelevant because we arent talking about > > libtool scripts. > > You mean that if liba.la was created when there was a libb.la that > did contain the needed info? In that case trying to use liba.la > now already fails, because it's looking for libb.la.
if you delete .la files that were recorded already in other .la files and dont clean up the mess, then that's a fault in your process > In case liba.la never knew about a libb.la, or libb.a never existed, > I can't see any difference. if libb.la didnt exist, then this discussion is completely irrelevant because you're no longer talking about libtool -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
