Re: Building all static

[Gary V. Vaughan]

Hi Ralf,

Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> Besides, it's a clear change of published interface (this doesn't mean
> I'm for or against the change.  Just needs to be marked VERY VERY big.
> Users of former Libtool-type `-static' will need to use
>   libtool --version
> in order to differentiate old and new behavior, and so on.  Ugly.
> How many packages/people use this?  How many people have called other
> autotools names because of interface changes?)

Absolutely.

In light of discussion so far, can we get consensus on leaving `-all-static'
as is, and making `-static' choose which system libraries to link dynamically
based on some other method than whether or not they have a .la file attached?

`-lt-static' was still-born, lets pretend I never said that ;-)

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