On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 11:56:54PM -0400, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> Noah Misch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > This `.la' file tells Libtool that there is no static library, even
> > though there is one. Either the Libtool that generated this library
> > was buggy, or something edited the file after Libto
Noah Misch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> This `.la' file tells Libtool that there is no static library, even
> though there is one. Either the Libtool that generated this library
> was buggy, or something edited the file after Libtool wrote it.
Identical misbehavior was reported in 2004 on a Red Hat sys
On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 05:44:33PM -0400, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> # Names of this library.
> library_names='libglib-2.0.so.0.1200.4 libglib-2.0.so.0 libglib-2.0.so'
>
> # The name of the static archive.
> old_library=''
This `.la' file tells Libtool that there is no static library, even though t
Noah Misch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> It looks like the system integrator built these libraries with
> --disable-shared. Do any of /usr/lib/libg{module,thread,lib}-2.0.a
> exist? If so, please post the contents of /usr/lib/libglib-2.0.la.
They do exist.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ ls /usr/lib/libg{module,
On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 11:50:34AM -0400, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> Somewhere deep inside either the libtool/autotools/automake toolchain,
> there appears to be a bug relating to generation of command-line references
> for three specific static libraries.
Libtool is responsible for the behavior you
Somewhere deep inside either the libtool/autotools/automake toolchain,
there appears to be a bug relating to generation of command-line references
for three specific static libraries. Furthermore, this bug has
apparently existed since at least 2004.
Here is a generated command line from an attemp
