Re: Building all static

[Gary V. Vaughan]

Hi Bob, Ralf!

Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Nov 2004, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> 
>>
>> Is that a mail-only typo?  You used LD_FLAGS instead of LDFLAGS.
>> But then, configure will most likely fail soon, before libtool is even
>> involved -- the compiler will see -all-static and barf.
>> There's been discussion about this on this list about Libtool-specific
>> environment variables and -Xlinker stuff.  However, I do not know a
>> general approach to your setting.  I'd just do
>>  configure LDFLAGS=-static
>>  make LDFLAGS=-all-static
>> but that's obviously a hack.
>>
>> A general solution to this problem is needed.
> 
> The only fool-proof solution is for autoconf to use libtool to execute
> its tests, however, libtool itself is dependent on autoconf so there is
> a seemingly unsolvable problem.

This is a classic bootstrap problem.  A libtool release tarball can be built
without autoconf, and autoconf could generate a configure that used such an
installed libtool for running its tests when the configure.ac invoked LT_INIT...

Akim and I long ago discussed how life could become much easier if the
autotools merged into a single cooperative package to fix this kind of thing.
 There was some loose agreement that this would happen someday :-(

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