[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Building all static
From: |
Ralf Wildenhues |
Subject: |
Re: Building all static |
Date: |
Tue, 2 Nov 2004 16:56:43 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.4.1i |
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 04:33:45PM CET:
> Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> > On Tue, 2 Nov 2004, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
> >
> > This seems like a particularly bad idea to me. What is the value of
> > changing existing documented libtool behavior?
>
> Consistency, and user expectation. Looking through the archives I see the
> repeated question of why -static still links shared libraries for libtool,
> but not when linking with the compiler driver or system linker:
I think that if there were a way to specify options to `libtool
--mode=link' on the configure line, then probably many people could
settle with -all-static. Anyway you do it, users cannot at the moment
use both possibilities, because one of them will not pass configure
tests. /That/ is the main problem.
Guess you could even map that to --enable-all-static or something like
that (ugly, I know).
Regards,
Ralf
Re: Building all static, Bob Friesenhahn, 2004/11/02
Re: Building all static, Gary V. Vaughan, 2004/11/02
Re: Building all static, Bob Friesenhahn, 2004/11/02
Re: Building all static,
Ralf Wildenhues <=
Re: Building all static, Gary V. Vaughan, 2004/11/02
Re: Building all static, Bob Friesenhahn, 2004/11/02
Re: Building all static, Bruce Korb, 2004/11/02
Re: Building all static, Gary V. Vaughan, 2004/11/02
Re: Building all static, Peter O'Gorman, 2004/11/03
Re: Building all static, Gary V. Vaughan, 2004/11/03
Re: Building all static, Bob Friesenhahn, 2004/11/03
Re: Building all static, Peter O'Gorman, 2004/11/03
Re: Building all static, Gary V. Vaughan, 2004/11/03
Re: Building all static, Peter O'Gorman, 2004/11/03