Re: Building all static

[Gary V. Vaughan]

Hi Peter!

Peter O'Gorman wrote:
> Hmm, sorry that I am so late into the fray. Indeed the -static flag
> should not require a .la file.

Agreed.  This was an arbitrary and strange choice.

> In my opinion, since libtool knows the library search paths, the
> extension used for shared objects, the extension used for static
> archives and lots of other information about libraries on every platform
> already, the -static flag should simply prefer static archives if they
> are available in the linker path. There should be no need for any lists
> of system shared objects.

Considering Bob's posts about how static linking against system libraries
gets you a binary that might stop working if you move it to another
similar version, or upgrade your system... and considering that we already
extract a list of automatically linked libraries for each compiler incase
we want to link with ld:  Why do you want to make -static the same as 
-all-static?

Libtool already has a history of trying to protect the user from
themself(sic), so I would be inclined to exclude system libraries for -static
as the common case, leaving -all-static for the few users that really know
they want to trade off deployability against a static only link.

Cheers,
        Gary.
-- 
Gary V. Vaughan      ())_.  address@hidden,gnu.org}
Research Scientist   ( '/   http://tkd.kicks-ass.net
GNU Hacker           / )=   http://www.gnu.org/software/libtool
Technical Author   `(_~)_   http://sources.redhat.com/autobook

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature