[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: another darwin patch
From: |
Peter O'Gorman |
Subject: |
Re: another darwin patch |
Date: |
Tue, 4 Mar 2003 12:42:53 +0900 |
On Tuesday, March 4, 2003, at 01:44 AM, Boehne, Robert wrote:
Then why does pass_all exist?
For those linking static libs to executables.
You didn't get enough coffee today :)
My question was more of a "If libtool is aiming to be the same across
all platforms, with no platform being allowed to link a shared library
with a static archive as a dependency lib, then why does the
lt_cv_deplibs_check_method=pass_all exist, and why is it the method
which is used for linux and most of the other OSes in libtool.m4?"
thing.
Currently, if a developer on one of those systems which have "pass_all"
as the deplibs_check_method adds (to use Ben Reed's example) -lXinerama
to LIBADD then build their shared library libtool will not give them
any portability warnings, it doesn't even check what kind of library
libXinerama is. How does this help in portability when we then go to
compile this on darwin, and libtool drops the dependency because it is
not available as a shared library?
Then we also get to situation two, developer A's OS Vendor includes
libfoo as a shared library, developer B includes libfoo, but only in
their developer package, as a static archive. Developer A's packages
will not build on developer B's machine. portable?
pass_all allows developers to make non-portable packages and should be
removed from libtool.
Peter
- Re: another darwin patch, (continued)
RE: another darwin patch, Boehne, Robert, 2003/03/03
- Re: another darwin patch,
Peter O'Gorman <=