Re: [FYI] Cleanup of linux pass_all

[Jacob Meuser]

On Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 04:22:56PM -0500, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Sep 2004, Jacob Meuser wrote:
> >>
> >>The marker you suggest (special library naming) would cause builds
> >>which do not know about the marker scheme to fail unless the linker
> >>hides the special naming.
> >
> >how?  there is both libfoo.a and libfoo_pic.a.  They would be no
         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >worse off than now.  the thing is, libtool could know to pick
> >libfoo_pic.a ass opposed to libfoo.a when it needs PIC.
> 
> Applications are not required to use libtool.  If a portable 
> application not using libtool specifies -lfoo but the library is 
> installed as libfoo_pic.a then linking will fail if the linker is not 
> aware of the linking scheme.

small, simple, and in some cases, already done, work.

> If the application uses libtool to link, then libtool would know to 
> look for libfoo_pic.a since it is aware of the special naming 
> convention.
> 
> If existing libraries start transitioning from libfoo.a to 
> libfoo_pic.a then there will be chaos for several years.  It would be 
> like the Linux glibc mess all over again.

no, because there would be both libfoo.a and libfoo_pic.a.

> Therefore, the simplest solution is for all installed static libraries 
> to be built using libtool, or at least have an associated libtool .la 
> file. :-)

-- 
<address@hidden>