[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: portability of -L<relative_directory_name>
From: |
Ralf Wildenhues |
Subject: |
Re: portability of -L<relative_directory_name> |
Date: |
Sun, 24 Feb 2008 18:16:13 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.17 (2008-01-17) |
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 explicitly:
>
> libtool ... -L../lib ../lib/libfoo.la
> or
> libtool ... ../lib/libfoo.la
You should use the last one, none of the others.
> Is it true that references to non-yet-installed libool libraries should not be
> made with -l? If so, it would be worth to document this in the libtool
> documentation. I didn't find it there.
Quoting info libtool "Linking executables":
(1) However, you should avoid using `-L' or `-l' flags to link
against an uninstalled libtool library. Just specify the relative path
to the `.la' file, such as `../intl/libintl.la'. This is a design
decision to eliminate any ambiguity when linking against uninstalled
shared libraries.
This has been documented for eons.
Cheers,
Ralf