Re: configure option naming convention

[Ralf Wildenhues]

Hi Lars,

* Lars J. Aas wrote on Mon, Sep 19, 2005 at 12:07:46PM CEST:
> : * Lars J. Aas wrote on Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 04:48:36PM CEST:
> : > 
> : > I'm wondering if there is a convention already for this or not.
> : > I am linking static libraries on windows (msvc++).  Not involving
> : > libtool or anything ready-made from autoconf/automake for that matter.
> : > Anyways, I can either just ball together just the object files for
> : > the library, or I can link the archive and pull in external
> : > dependencies at the same time.  Doing the latter, I don't need to
> : > do it when I link the static library into the executable.

> I've attached a small demo archive.  It's set up for Microsoft Visual
> Studio .NET 2003, but I believe just changing the libpath path should
> be enough to use it with Visual Studio 6.0.  However, it looks like
> I might have been confused about what happens when one static library
> includes another static library on the link line.  For some reason
> I thought it only pulled in the code that was used from the target
> library, but now I believe the whole library is just added to the
> static library so it's essentially both static libraries as one.

So it's a bit like libtool's (static) convenience archives work (note
that I haven't yet had a chance to verify this).  If you also then
choose not to install lib1, it's even more like them.

> Anyways, I will still need to do the above - bundle additional static
> libraries into the static library I am building, and I'll need to find
> an option name for it...

OK, I'll give it a try:

Given above holds, and coming from the libtool nomenclature, I'd suggest
  --enable-convenience-archive=lib1
or shorter
  --enable-convenience=lib1

If OTOH you would want to emphasize rather the fact that you enrich lib2
(for example because you also have a lib3 which should not subsume lib1),
then that would not fit the libtool (static) convenience archive model.

Hmm.  `fat archive' is already taken by darwin, `fat lib' sounds like you
manipulate a certain file system,
  --enable-lib2-static=lib1
would be overloading the most-overloaded word `static' even more, but is
actually used with similar semantics by a piece of (not GNU) software,
and `contain' or `container' has different meaning in some programming
languages.  How about
  --enable-lib2-bundle=lib1
then?

Maybe you don't want to mention lib1 at all, because it's irrelevant.
Then something like
  --enable-rich-library=lib2
could fit better, but I really don't know whether this has a second
meaning I've failed to grasp.

It actually feels weird to suggest namings for things to the person
credited with multiple Autotools-related namings, more so as a
non-native.  ;-)

Cheers,
Ralf