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 ())_. 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
