[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: libtool 1.5 -static and installed libraries
From: |
Howard Chu |
Subject: |
Re: libtool 1.5 -static and installed libraries |
Date: |
Mon, 29 Aug 2005 03:34:17 -0700 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8b4) Gecko/20050827 SeaMonkey/1.1a |
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Hi Howard, Alexandre, others,
* Howard Chu wrote on Sun, Aug 28, 2005 at 10:19:03PM CEST:
We just migrated from libtool-1.4.3 to 1.5.18 in the OpenLDAP CVS HEAD,
and are seeing a new linking problem.
You've migrated *already*? :-)
This was actually our 2nd or 3rd attempt. Now that we've gotten off of
autoconf 2.13.1 we may be able to move a little faster from now on. ;)
(Hey, Cyrus SASL still ships with libtool 1.3.5.......)
So the question is, why does linking with -static cause libtool to
behave like -all-static was used, why does it ignore the installed
status of the libraries?
(You also sent a patch to change this behavior to match the current,
i.e., both branch-1-5 and CVS HEAD, documentation).
Now while your patch looks ok at a glance, I'm unsure whether what is
wanted by users is what the documentation says or what the current code
does. See for example this discussion between Akim and Alexandre about
the issue:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libtool/2005-01/msg00350.html
Yes, I read through that discussion but it seemed to be a fairly special
case. It didn't make any sense to me, really - requesting a static link,
while requesting that no static libraries be built...
Something I didn't test properly yet is what happens if the executable
needs to be relinked at install time. Since the just-built libraries
will most likely be installed before the exe is relinked, it seems to me
it may foul up. (But my SuSE system didn't need relinking; will have
to try again on a different platform to see.)
Should we discuss this and decide about what's best? Maybe we'd need
another switch to link statically against all non-system libs (in the
sense that libc is one, but libdb is not)? Or would implementing per-
deplib static/shared switches be the only solution?
That may work best, though it sounds tedious. A lot of linkers allow
-static/-dynamic to be specified multiple times on a command line,
toggling the choice until the next switch occurs in the options.
--
-- Howard Chu
Chief Architect, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com
Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc
OpenLDAP Core Team http://www.openldap.org/project/