On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 02:09:06PM +0100, Erik Abele wrote: > On 23.01.2005, at 18:43, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > > >On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 01:11:34AM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > >>Please describe what this actually does? > >> > >>Are we back to libproxy.la, libssl.la after this change? > > > >For static modules, yes. This was modified in r102381 by Joe: > > > >--- > >Correct use of libtool: libtool convenience libraries which are to be > >linked directly into a program must be linked using -static and not > >-module. Fixes build issues with libtool HEAD. > >--- > > > >Erik's change just catches up the manual modules to this change. -- > >justin > > Exactly, this just keeps --with-module consistent with the rest of the > build system, in respect to the changes introduced by Joe. (Sorry, > Bill, I somehow missed your original mail...)
Actually it doesn't, there was a subsequent change to use "libmod_*.la" for statically-linked modules, since creating a "libfoo.la" which is linked against a "-lfoo" confuses libtool. On 2.0 statically-linked modules still use filenames like "mod_*.la", so it's not consistent with that either ;) I wasn't sure: what motivated your change, just consistency? My changes were made to fix issues using as-yet-unreleased versions of libtool. joe
