[Top][All Lists]

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

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

From: Frank Kemmer
Subject: AW: libtool -release 2.1 does not add release to library name
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 10:46:38 +0200

> > Wouldn't it be nice, if libtool had versioned the '.a' files, too, if
> > -release option
> > is given? Or may be another option -staticlib-release?
> > 
> > This is just a question? Or is there another style of versioning
> > 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

That is not okay with me, somebody who says I always want to link against
the newest version is on his own. The one who knows what he is doing should
use the libname with a release infix ... :)

> for that one if you say -lxx. It is not actually the same
> as having a versioned library install, ye know.

You are absolutely right for the shared libs but for the static libs I don't
know of any other way to version them than with a verision part in the name.

> 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.

That would be indeed quite comfortable.

> 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 be alright for me, too.

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

I am interested in the opionions here, too ...

reply via email to

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