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

Re: libtool crap [Re: SDL c102 transition]

On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 02:24:26PM +0000, Scott James Remnant wrote:

> > > Look, no dep trawling...

> > > virus lttest% objdump -p .libs/test | grep NEEDED
> > >   NEEDED      libb.so.0
> > >   NEEDED      libc.so.6

> > Is it possible to get your patched version of libtool ? Also, are there
> > some hacks to achieve that with current libtool ?

> Of course you may have the patch, especially if you plan to find out
> whether this does the right thing or not.

> The patch does the following:

> 1) If the OS is Linux then set link_all_deplibs to "no" rather than
>    "unknown".  Nothing else sets this to "no", so it should only
>    change Linux behaviour.

> 2) Don't set dependency_libs if link_all_deplibs is "no".  This means
>    that the dependency_libs line in the .la file will be empty, because
>    the linker can handle it.  It *ALSO* means that the dependency_libs
>    line from .la files will not be considered when linking (ie you don't
>    need to recompile everything on your system).

> I'm almost positive this will break things, so be very very careful. 
> Don't just apply this because you like the idea, if you're going to use
> this patch *ASSUME* your software will be broken, and test very very
> hard accordingly.

From your description, it sounds like this will break anything trying to
use the .la file for the list of dependencies of the static lib.  If this
is not the case, I don't see anything else that would be broken by such a

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: pgpq3eqnbHnYu.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: