FW: libtool update likely breaks modules...

[Howard Chu]

Misdirected this email the first time around. We need a runtime (not compile
time) option in the main/released libtool branch to specify that only static
or only shared libraries should be built. The default behavior of building
both when a platform supports both is not usable on platforms like Win32 and
AIX where the library naming convention doesn't distinguish between dynamic
and static libraries. The static and dynamic code overwrites the same
library file, leaving an ugly mess.

I have raised this issue before. I am aware that there is a libtool branch
(the multi
language branch) that supports tags which supports this functionality, but
that doesn't help since the feature is not in the officially released
version.

  -- Howard Chu
  Chief Architect, Symas Corp.       Director, Highland Sun
  http://www.symas.com               http://highlandsun.com/hyc

-----Original Message-----
From: Howard Chu [mailto:address@hidden
Sent: Monday, October 02, 2000 1:54 PM
To: Kurt D. Zeilenga;
Cc: address@hidden
Subject: RE: libtool update likely breaks modules...


It appears that the options to build only static libraries or only shared
libraries are still not in the 1.3 branch of libtool. They exist in the
multi-language/tagged branch.
This is going to be a problem for NT and AIX, unless they've fixed them to
use different library names for static and shared libraries. On both NT and
AIX, the same suffix is used for both static and shared libraries. The
normal libtool behavior is to build both static and shared when a platform
supports both. On NT and AIX this will result in unusable libraries because
the static and shared code will overwrite each other as compilation and
linking progress.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: address@hidden
> [mailto:address@hidden Behalf Of Kurt D. Zeilenga
> Sent: Monday, October 02, 2000 1:32 PM
> To: Howard Chu
> Cc: address@hidden
> Subject: RE: libtool update likely breaks modules...
>
>
> At 01:13 PM 10/2/00 -0700, Howard Chu wrote:
> >Yuck. You're probably right, I'll have to see what's changed in libtool
> >1.3.5.
> >I believe the "--only-static" flag has been renamed in 1.3.5, we have to
> >find
> >out what they're calling it now.
>
> Did you hack 1.3.3?  CVSweb seems to indicate you did...
>
>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: address@hidden
> >> [mailto:address@hidden Behalf Of Kurt D. Zeilenga
> >> Sent: Monday, October 02, 2000 1:02 PM
> >> To: address@hidden
> >> Subject: libtool update likely breaks modules...
> >>
> >>
> >> I assume the libtool update will breaks modules...
> >> Those desiring module support likely should sort
> >> out necessary changes...
> >>
> >> Kurt
> >>
>