[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Need more

From: Schleicher Ralph (LLI)
Subject: Re: Need more
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 08:48:21 +0200

Robert Boehne <address@hidden> writes:

> Anyway, what is the problem with what Libtool currently does?
> Couldn't you either configure to not build static, or simply
> ignore the static version?


it's ok for me if you don't want to change the Libtool build sequence;
that means, compiling static and shared objects, then linking a static
and shared library with fixed file name extensions.  It's a waste of
time and disk space when building loadable modules but I can live with
that.  As Howard Chu has already pointed out, disabling static libraries
at configuration time is not desirable for a package that builds
libraries as well as loadable modules.  The only thing I really would
appreciated is if I could tell Libtool:

 * To install a module with another file name, for example,
   `foo_la_LDFLAGS = -avoid-version -module -install-name foo.modext'.
   Or maybe better, allow me to override the file name extension, for
   example, `foo_la_LDFLAGS = -avoid-version -module -soext .modext'.
   Please note the leading dot so that the user is even able to build
   loadable modules without a file name extension at all.

 * Not to install the static library and .la meta-data file.

Both features avoid hooking into the installation procedure to rename
and delete files after installation.  Regards,


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]