29.04.2014, 05:59, "Bob Friesenhahn" <bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us>: > On Mon, 28 Apr 2014, Evgeny Grin wrote: >> Good. But requiring "-no-undefined" for Win32 flag lower probability of >> successful compile. > In what way does it lower the probability of a successful compile? > Static linkage is much more portable than dynamic. That was another asked question: why libtool didn't fail if requested dynamic lib was not build. Anyway, if I'm building dynamic lib and it was not built, that's called "unsuccessful build".
> The situation you outlined is due to a defective package > preparation/build environment. A proper build has just one version of > a given library in a link. Could you explain this a little bit? In the topic "-no-undefined on Win32" I was talking about only one version of lib. > Regardless, it is very unlikely that libtool will react to your plea > (if it does at all) in a timely fashion and so you are best advised to > fix your build without relying on significant changes in libtool. All my builds were "fixed" already. I'd like to improve libtool. If *uncommenting* one line and deleting other line in libtool are significant changes, then I'd like to significantly change libtool. :) Could you answer my main question: why libtool don't follow logic of other GNU tools? Instead of acting as a "tool" and passing required flags to compiler/linker, libtool is acting as mentor and does not do it work until you signal that you aware of something? -- Best Wishes, Evgeny Grin _______________________________________________ https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool