[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Need more
Schleicher Ralph (LLI)
Re: Need more
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,
- Need more, Schleicher Ralph (LLI), 2002/09/12
- Re: Need more,
Schleicher Ralph (LLI) <=
- Re: Need more, Schleicher Ralph (LLI), 2002/09/13