"Gary V. Vaughan" wrote: > Are these assumptions good? > > i) people who specify -static to libtool don't want to link against > any dynamic libraries, and are suprised that isn't actually the case. > ii) the -static option is not used to mean `link static libtool libraries, > and dynamic otherwise' in many shipping packages. > > If not, then maybe we need a third type of static linking in libtool, that > links statically where possible, except if no static lib is available (-ldl?). > But thats what I expect -all-static to do now, and I think it should be > called -static... ``-static'' needs to imply the common and ordnary meaning of ``static''. "libtool" is a less common and ordinary command than either "gcc" or "ld". It is not a directly obvious thing that you would need to add the qualifier "all-" to it in order to actually get static linking. Being obvious is far more important than compatibility for the few users who: 1. use -static 2. don't want fully static 3. would have a hard time coping with the change :-) Cheers - Bruce _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
