Re: -no-undefined on Win32

[Evgeny Grin]

29.04.2014, 05:59, "Bob Friesenhahn" <address@hidden>:
> On Mon, 28 Apr 2014, Evgeny Grin wrote:
>>  Good. But requiring "-no-undefined" for Win32 flag lower probability of 
>> successful compile.
> In what way does it lower the probability of a successful compile?
> Static linkage is much more portable than dynamic.
That was another asked question: why libtool didn't fail if requested dynamic 
lib was not build.
Anyway, if I'm building dynamic lib and it was not built, that's called 
"unsuccessful build".

> The situation you outlined is due to a defective package
> preparation/build environment.  A proper build has just one version of
> a given library in a link.
Could you explain this a little bit?
In the topic "-no-undefined on Win32" I was talking about only one version of 
lib.

> Regardless, it is very unlikely that libtool will react to your plea
> (if it does at all) in a timely fashion and so you are best advised to
> fix your build without relying on significant changes in libtool.
All my builds were "fixed" already.
I'd like to improve libtool.
If *uncommenting* one line and deleting other line in libtool are significant 
changes, then I'd like to significantly change libtool. :)

Could you answer my main question: why libtool don't follow logic of other GNU 
tools? Instead of acting as a "tool" and passing required flags to 
compiler/linker, libtool is acting as mentor and does not do it work until you 
signal that you aware of something?

-- 
Best Wishes,
Evgeny Grin