Re: Confused by .la file removal vs static linking support
Nikita V. Youshchenko, le Sun 02 May 2010 21:18:26 +0400, a écrit :
> > On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 15:30:37 +0400, Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote:
> > > > On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 11:46:23 +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> > > > > (To actually statically link without the .la (or with an .la
> > > > > 'mangled' to empty the dependency_libs field) largely amounts to
> > > > > reconstructing the information that was in the .la originally.
> > > > > That should be sufficient disincentive to try to statically link
> > > > > at all. Hence, is it worth wasting archive space on the inevitably
> > > > > much larger .a files?)
> > > >
> > > > Static linking is resolved by providing a foo.pc file so that
> > > > "pkg-config --static --libs foo" is all that's needed to find the
> > > > right libs.
> > >
> > > This does not clarify the question about dependences.
> > It does, because foo.pc won't work without its dependencies installed
> > (even if you're not using --static; they're needed for --cflags).
> What for?
For #includes that your library may do for its API (e.g. gobject).