[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: shared libtool noinst_ or check_ libraries?

From: Ralf Wildenhues
Subject: Re: shared libtool noinst_ or check_ libraries?
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 11:01:19 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-11-01)

* Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote on Fri, Dec 01, 2006 at 10:45:26AM CET:
> Ralf Wildenhues <Ralf.Wildenhues <at>> writes:
> > if you need a shared library, you
> > could just add that argument manually, e.g., by
> >   libtest_foo_la_LDFLAGS = -rpath /foo $(AM_LDFLAGS)
> I understand.  This works as a charm!  It would be nice if libtool
> were to give a warning, but that would be a libtool feature request.

Warning about what?  It does just what it's documented to do, and there
are many legitimate uses of convenience archives where it would be wrong
to generate a shared library.

I do agree that the libtool interface semantics are a bit unobvious at
first though.  Unfortunately, it's far too late to change that now.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]