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 ())_. gary@{lilith.warpmail.net,gnu.org}
Research Scientist ( '/ http://tkd.kicks-ass.net
GNU Hacker / )= http://www.gnu.org/software/libtool
Technical Author `(_~)_ http://sources.redhat.com/autobook
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
