[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: shared libtool noinst_ or check_ libraries?
From: |
Ralf Wildenhues |
Subject: |
Re: shared libtool noinst_ or check_ libraries? |
Date: |
Fri, 1 Dec 2006 11:01:19 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-11-01) |
* Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote on Fri, Dec 01, 2006 at 10:45:26AM CET:
> Ralf Wildenhues <Ralf.Wildenhues <at> gmx.de> writes:
>
> > if you need a shared library, you
> > could just add that argument manually, e.g., by
> > libtest_foo_la_LDFLAGS = -rpath /foo $(AM_LDFLAGS)
>
> I understand. This works as a charm! It would be nice if libtool
> were to give a warning, but that would be a libtool feature request.
Warning about what? It does just what it's documented to do, and there
are many legitimate uses of convenience archives where it would be wrong
to generate a shared library.
I do agree that the libtool interface semantics are a bit unobvious at
first though. Unfortunately, it's far too late to change that now.
Cheers,
Ralf