Hi Lars, * Lars J. Aas wrote on Mon, Sep 19, 2005 at 12:07:46PM CEST: > : * Lars J. Aas wrote on Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 04:48:36PM CEST: > : > > : > I'm wondering if there is a convention already for this or not. > : > I am linking static libraries on windows (msvc++). Not involving > : > libtool or anything ready-made from autoconf/automake for that matter. > : > Anyways, I can either just ball together just the object files for > : > the library, or I can link the archive and pull in external > : > dependencies at the same time. Doing the latter, I don't need to > : > do it when I link the static library into the executable. > I've attached a small demo archive. It's set up for Microsoft Visual > Studio .NET 2003, but I believe just changing the libpath path should > be enough to use it with Visual Studio 6.0. However, it looks like > I might have been confused about what happens when one static library > includes another static library on the link line. For some reason > I thought it only pulled in the code that was used from the target > library, but now I believe the whole library is just added to the > static library so it's essentially both static libraries as one. So it's a bit like libtool's (static) convenience archives work (note that I haven't yet had a chance to verify this). If you also then choose not to install lib1, it's even more like them. > Anyways, I will still need to do the above - bundle additional static > libraries into the static library I am building, and I'll need to find > an option name for it... OK, I'll give it a try: Given above holds, and coming from the libtool nomenclature, I'd suggest --enable-convenience-archive=lib1 or shorter --enable-convenience=lib1 If OTOH you would want to emphasize rather the fact that you enrich lib2 (for example because you also have a lib3 which should not subsume lib1), then that would not fit the libtool (static) convenience archive model. Hmm. `fat archive' is already taken by darwin, `fat lib' sounds like you manipulate a certain file system, --enable-lib2-static=lib1 would be overloading the most-overloaded word `static' even more, but is actually used with similar semantics by a piece of (not GNU) software, and `contain' or `container' has different meaning in some programming languages. How about --enable-lib2-bundle=lib1 then? Maybe you don't want to mention lib1 at all, because it's irrelevant. Then something like --enable-rich-library=lib2 could fit better, but I really don't know whether this has a second meaning I've failed to grasp. It actually feels weird to suggest namings for things to the person credited with multiple Autotools-related namings, more so as a non-native. ;-) Cheers, Ralf _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
