Re: static vs. dynamic linking

[Ralf Wildenhues]

Hi Enrico,

* Enrico Weigelt wrote on Mon, Sep 26, 2005 at 09:56:27PM CEST:
> 
> how does libtool decide whether to link against an .la library 
> dynamically vs. statically ?

For a program or a library?  Uninstalled or installed library
(see recent bug report of Howard Chu)?  On a system with both
static and shared libraries, or just one of them?  When the user
has configured --{enable,disable}-{static,shared} or added
-static or -all-static?  For a normal dependency library or a
module dependency, or maybe a convenience archive?

> I'm currently working on my own implementation, since libtool 
> doesn't suit my needs (ie. sysroot'ed building), but I didn't
> find any clear specification for libtool's behaviour.

We have better support for sysroot and/or DESTDIR on our TODO list.
Why don't you help us improve and fix libtool?  That is bound to be
a lot less work.

Please note that we have received and rejected patches concerning
this at times, but only when the patches did not fix the real issue
but only lessened the experienced problems (for the specific problem
the patch-submitter encountered).  We have discussed this issue a
number of times, some threads give valuable data points what to look
out for.  If you are interested, I can post some links.

*time passes*
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libtool-patches/2005-06/msg00161.html
Oh, you asked before.  Why not rather fix your patch than rewrite from
scratch?

Let me give you a hint, and it's not meant to discourage you:  I've
not been involved with Libtool for very long by any means, I know it
has lots of shortcomings and bugs, but I do know that it's the
result of a lot of work gone into it by a lot of people; repeating
that is far from trivial.  I've decided for myself it's easier to
fix Libtool.  And you get all fixed packages for free.

Cheers,
Ralf