[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: libtool crap [Re: SDL c102 transition]

On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 01:04:31PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:

 > I'm all for writing a libtool replacement that provides portability
 > to *sane* platforms.  Maybe I'll start a mailing list.

 Instead of starting a new project, wouldn't it be better to fix
 libtool?  You have to think about what libtool does, why, and how.

 libtool adds an abstraction layer on top of the normal library creation
 process.  It knows, for example, how to create shared libraries on many
 platforms using the vendor compiler.  On OSes like HP/UX (or even
 Solaris) that's not something to laugh at.  These systems exist and are
 in use, you can't just deny that.  Furthermore, libtool makes your life
 easier if you have to work, for whatever reason, with static libraries.
 If foo is available only as libfoo.a, and it needs symbols from libbar,
 the libfoo.la file contains this information.

 What libtool is doing wrong in this case is that it is ignoring the
 fact that the linux linker can recursively resolve dependencies.  If
 the .la file says that foo needs bar, it passes a -lbar flag to the
 linker idenpendently of the linker's abilities on that platform.


Reply to: