[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: libtool -release 2.1 does not add release to library name

From: Guido Draheim
Subject: Re: libtool -release 2.1 does not add release to library name
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 19:44:22 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.1) Gecko/20020826

Frank Kemmer wrote:

Wouldn't it be nice, if libtool had versioned the '.a' files, too, if the
-release option
is given? Or may be another option -staticlib-release?

This is just a question? Or is there another style of versioning intended
for the
static libs?

we had a talk about that just a few days ago on this list.

Look closer, you do not only get but you also
get some file - and the compiler will *only* look
for that one if you say -lxx. It is not actually the same
as having a versioned library install, ye know.

And yes, it definitly hurts for us multi-build guys who
have some versioning in the name but each and every
build will try to install a libxx.a and
I would be even partly satisfied if one could suppress
these two for specific builds.

Still, I'd like to see a --variant name, something like
a $suffix but just attached to the base name, i.e.
libname_spec='lib$name$variant' all over the place
instead of the current detour via $release to take
advantage of soname_spec='$libname$$major'

That would make it to specify --variant 64 --relase x11 to
generate  and, and yes,
I'm perfectly fine with telling all later links to do
some -lxxx64 as well - most probaby via autoconf
substitutes as variant=64, ac_subst(variant), and using
--variant @variant@ for the one lib and the other link
line to take address@hidden@ to be able to see it.

Well, is that the style all the others do think of
when turning to versioned library installs??

-- guido

reply via email to

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