Hallo Ralf!
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
* Albert Chin wrote on Wed, May 17, 2006 at 03:18:09AM CEST:
The following patch addresses
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libtool/2006-04/msg00044.html. I
added a new variable, hardcode_direct_static, to indicate if
hardcode_direct=yes would hardcode a static library dependency. This
impacts HP-UX/PA and AIX.
I think this should be set for OpenBSD as well, no?
I'm not familiar with OpenBSD. Now that we have a test to expose it,
we just need someone to run it on OpenBSD and find out :-)
If I understand this correctly, then this setting will kill off one of
the biggest complaints the OpenBSD folks have against Libtool. :-)
Cool!
But say: do we actually know of systems that have hardcode_direct=yes
and that cause it to put the path into the DT_RPATH and not just the
full path in the DT_NEEDED? If not, we don't need this new flag, and
reordering what we like to do in ltmain would be the better solution.
Parameterising in this fashion will allow us to cope with such a host
if/when we find it very easily, where the reordering solution would
require more work. I like the current approach better for that reason.
Oh well. I put this patch off for a reason: it requires lots of
thought...
Sorry, I didn't see your objections when working through the front of
my backlog :-(
Pragmatically it does solve a real problem though... better to do that
before 2.0 IMHO.
Cheers,
Gary.
--
Gary V. Vaughan ())_. [EMAIL PROTECTED],gnu.org}
Research Scientist ( '/ http://blog.azazil.net
GNU Hacker / )= http://trac.azazil.net/projects/libtool
Technical Author `(_~)_ http://sources.redhat.com/autobook
