Re: portability of -L

2008-02-24 Thread Roumen Petrov
Ralf Wildenhues wrote: Hello Bruno, * Bruno Haible wrote on Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 02:51:08PM CET: A while ago someone said that if in a build directory I have a (not yet installed) ../lib/libfoo.la, to link with this library I should *not* use libtool ... -L../lib -lfoo but rather mentio

Re: portability of -L

2008-02-24 Thread Ralf Wildenhues
Hello Bruno, * Bruno Haible wrote on Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 02:51:08PM CET: > > A while ago someone said that if in a build directory I have a (not yet > installed) ../lib/libfoo.la, to link with this library I should *not* use > >libtool ... -L../lib -lfoo > > but rather mention the .la file

Re: portability of -L

2008-02-24 Thread Roumen Petrov
Bruno Haible wrote: Hi, A while ago someone said that if in a build directory I have a (not yet installed) ../lib/libfoo.la, to link with this library I should *not* use libtool ... -L../lib -lfoo but rather mention the .la file explicitly: libtool ... -L../lib ../lib/libfoo.la or li

Re: portability of -L

2008-02-24 Thread Peter O'Gorman
Hi Bruno, Bruno Haible wrote: > Hi, > > A while ago someone said that if in a build directory I have a (not yet > installed) ../lib/libfoo.la, to link with this library I should *not* use > >libtool ... -L../lib -lfoo > > but rather mention the .la file explicitly: > >libtool ... -L../

portability of -L

2008-02-24 Thread Bruno Haible
Hi, A while ago someone said that if in a build directory I have a (not yet installed) ../lib/libfoo.la, to link with this library I should *not* use libtool ... -L../lib -lfoo but rather mention the .la file explicitly: libtool ... -L../lib ../lib/libfoo.la or libtool ... ../lib/libfo