bug-libtool
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: portability of -L<relative_directory_name>


From: Roumen Petrov
Subject: Re: portability of -L<relative_directory_name>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 09:01:33 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.1.12) Gecko/20080212 SeaMonkey/1.1.8

Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Hello Bruno,

* Bruno Haible wrote on Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 02:51:08PM CET:
A while ago someone said that if in a build directory I have a (not yet
installed) ../lib/libfoo.la, to link with this library I should *not* use

   libtool ... -L../lib -lfoo

but rather mention the .la file explicitly:

   libtool ... -L../lib ../lib/libfoo.la
or
   libtool ... ../lib/libfoo.la

You should use the last one, none of the others.

Is it true that references to non-yet-installed libool libraries should not be
made with -l? If so, it would be worth to document this in the libtool
documentation. I didn't find it there.

Quoting info libtool "Linking executables":

   (1) However, you should avoid using `-L' or `-l' flags to link
against an uninstalled libtool library.  Just specify the relative path
to the `.la' file, such as `../intl/libintl.la'.  This is a design
decision to eliminate any ambiguity when linking against uninstalled
shared libraries.

This has been documented for eons.

Cheers,
Ralf

What about same(similar) footnote to be added in section libtool "Linking libraries" ?

Roumen





reply via email to

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