Re: libtool 1.5 -static and installed libraries

[Howard Chu]

Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> Well, that behavior would be fine to me (and it would mean no changes to
> the code, which is good!), but would not match our current
> documentation:
> | @item -static
> | If @var{output-file} is a program, then do not link it against any
> | uninstalled shared libtool libraries.  If @var{output-file} is a
> | library, then only create a static library.
>
> AFAICS this has always been part of the documentation.

Indeed. And in libtool 1.4 (at least versions 1.4.2 and 1.4.3) the 
behavior matched the documentation.
> > If you want to link with static versions of uninstalled libraries,
> > that's relatively easy to accomplish: create a static-only version of
> > such libraries, with different names, perhaps even as convenience
> > archives, and link with them.  Then you won't have to use -static for
> > linking, and this will take care of getting the shared version of
> > libdb linked in.

Tell me there's a libtool switch that does this for me and I may be OK 
with it. But right now we create a library with
        libtool --mode=link -o libfoo.la $(OBJS)
and libtool decides what to name the shared and static libraries that it 
creates. If there is no libtool switch to provide the behavior you 
suggest then I think your suggestion is unreasonable.

> OK.  I would not mind either way, nor a third switch that actually did
> what the cited docs promises, (nor somebody implementing per-lib
> -Bstatic/-Bdynamic for me :).  Since this workaround sounds quite
> feasible, can we agree on fixing the documentation?

Considering that 1.4 behavior and doc agreed, I can only view this as a 
regression since 1.5.

--
  -- 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/