Hi Angelo, On Mon, 11 Dec 2017 18:00:24 +0100, Angelo Compagnucci wrote: > LIB_LINKS should be added as a dependency only when > BUILD_DYNAMIC_LIB is enabled > > Signed-off-by: Angelo Compagnucci <angelo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > lib/Module.mk | 3 +-- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/lib/Module.mk b/lib/Module.mk > index 8a58f5b..de189a2 100644 > --- a/lib/Module.mk > +++ b/lib/Module.mk > @@ -27,10 +27,9 @@ LIB_SHSONAME := $(LIB_SHBASENAME).$(LIB_MAINVER) > LIB_SHLIBNAME := $(LIB_SHBASENAME).$(LIB_VER) > LIB_STLIBNAME := libi2c.a > > -LIB_LINKS := $(LIB_SHSONAME) $(LIB_SHBASENAME) > - > LIB_TARGETS := > ifeq ($(BUILD_DYNAMIC_LIB),1) > +LIB_LINKS := $(LIB_SHSONAME) $(LIB_SHBASENAME) > LIB_TARGETS += $(LIB_SHLIBNAME) > endif > ifeq ($(BUILD_STATIC_LIB),1) This is correct, good catch. I'll commit it. In fact I thought about it when reviewing your previous patch, but (wrongly) assumed it did not matter. After adding all the missing dependencies, it clearly does. I have noticed another problem. While "make BUILD_STATIC_LIB=0" actually prevents the static flavor of the library from being built, "make BUILD_DYNAMIC_LIB=0" does not prevent the dynamic flavor of the library from being built. The reason is that USE_STATIC_LIB is not set, so tools depend on the dynamic library, which in turn gets built as a dependency. I suppose that BUILD_DYNAMIC_LIB=0 should imply USE_STATIC_LIB=1. Something like: --- a/Makefile +++ b/Makefile @@ -43,6 +43,8 @@ endif ifeq ($(BUILD_DYNAMIC_LIB),0) ifeq ($(BUILD_STATIC_LIB),0) $(error BUILD_DYNAMIC_LIB and BUILD_STATIC_LIB cannot be disabled at the same time) +else +USE_STATIC_LIB := 1 endif endif What do you think? Thanks, -- Jean Delvare SUSE L3 Support
