On Oct 5, 2006, Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 02:15:58AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> On Oct 2, 2006, Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> > So, if libtool were to simply ignore dependency_libs when building >> > against shared libs wouldn't that solve all issues? >> >> Nope, it would only solve the common case. >> >> It is perfectly possible for a dynamic library to depend on a >> static-only library. And it's even possible to create other dynamic >> libraries out of that, if the static-only library is PIC or the >> platform can handle non-PIC in dynamic libraries. > So? That's not a problem with the mentioned patch. Ignoring dependency_libs would break the following case: - libA.la, static only, provides symbol A - libB.la is linked with libA but doesn't bring in symbol A - program links with libB rightfully expecting it to provide a definition for A -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Secretary for FSF Latin America http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org} -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
