On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 02:49:48PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hi, > > > There is a problem in your argumentation. Whereas it does not make sense > > to > > specify implicit dependencies for shared libraries it does for static > > libraries. Even if you don't use a specific library directly it might be > > a > > requirement to link to this specific library when using static libraries > > because another library you are using depends on that. > > I am aware of this difference, but there is something else to consider: > Nowadays, many packages are not even installing static libraries any more.
Sure but this is the whole problem of almost all libtool discussions: People tend to generalize into one direction, skipping the other side of the story completely. It seems that libtool is quite a religios product. Most people are either for it or against it but almost nobody ever explain what exactly the problems are he currently suffers from. There is one group of people that always uses libtool for everything even when using the standard C library only and there is the group of people that for every single problem they see in using libtool just say that libtool is crap and that nobody never ever wants to use it. Actually that way these problems never get fixed because people just run away and instead reinvent the wheel. So in this specific case you are right that libtool does not handle the shared library case in a smart way but you cannot say that listing this dependencies is completely wrong. The design of the tool just does not match all use cases in a really good manner. Robert -- Robert Schiele Dipl.-Wirtsch.informatiker mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur."
pgpWqZTdRCgz1.pgp
Description: PGP signature
