Well, I think that building thing two level namespace ought to be the libtool default also, flat_namespace is needed for some things but causes problems for many others, how about trying both by default?I'm not so sure this is a good idea. Seems like this would make things harder for packages, since problems *besides* the namespace could also force it into building flat.
cc -multiply_defined suppress -prebind blah || cc -flat_namespace -undefined suppress blah
Say I'm building libkdeui, which depends on libkdecore and qt. If the link line was written on a linuxy system (ie, the linker allows indirect library references), it would end up doing something like:
1. libkdeui's LIBADD is "-lkdecore"
2. the first half of the link complains that -lqt-mt is indirectly referenced
3. it builds the library flat, and continues on
when what *should* happen is it dies at #2, and we add -lqt-mt to libkdeui's LIBADD like it should be.
_______________________________________________
Libtool mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
