On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 02:15:58AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Oct 2, 2006, Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm(a)ATrpms.net> wrote:
> So, if libtool were to simply ignore dependency_libs when building
> against shared libs wouldn't that solve all issues?
Nope, it would only solve the common case.
It is perfectly possible for a dynamic library to depend on a
static-only library. And it's even possible to create other dynamic
libraries out of that, if the static-only library is PIC or the
platform can handle non-PIC in dynamic libraries.
So? That's not a problem with the mentioned patch.
> If so the patch looks almost trivial and is far better than to
setup
> workflows on whether removing some *.la files and still have some
> false positives/negatives.
Breaking the libtool sources that get installed for packagers all over
the world to use, for deployment on various operating systems, is not
really an option I'd recommend.
Nobody suggested breaking anything.
--
Axel.Thimm at
ATrpms.net