Hi Alexandre, Scott! Scott James Remnant wrote: > On Sat, 2004-09-11 at 04:24 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >>I realize you're trying to be pragmatic here, and trying to find the >>simplest solution for the big problem at hand, but I don't think >>that's the right way to run a project. You should think of the >>libtool design first, and then try to get packages to use it properly, >>instead of forcing libtool to bend backwards to support abuses from >>packages that should have known better. While some of these packages >>might not actually be broken, others will be, and with this change >>users may get confused and blame libtool for an error that is actually >>theirs. >> > > The error in this case is Libtool's. It refuses to link PIC code into a > shared library because the test it uses to determine whether code is PIC > or not doesn't actually do anything of the kind and is based on an > incorrect assumption (static=non-PIC, shared=PIC). Isn't there some objdump incantation that will differentiate between PIC and non-PIC objects? If so, then we should add a new deplibs_check_method=objdump, and use that for as many hosts as we are able. 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