albert chin writes:
> Anyone available to review this patch?
I'll take the action.
--
Ralph
___
Libtool mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 08:48:54AM +0200, Schleicher Ralph (LLI) wrote:
> Howard Chu writes:
>
> > I've requested this feature and sent patches for it at least twice over the
> > past 3 years. The first time was silently ignored, the second rejected.
>
> I submitted a patch on 2003-02-10 for the
Howard Chu writes:
> I've requested this feature and sent patches for it at least twice over the
> past 3 years. The first time was silently ignored, the second rejected.
I submitted a patch on 2003-02-10 for the upcomming Libtool 1.5 release
but it was silently ignored, too.
--
Ralph
_
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Peter
O'Gorman
> Adding this feature would not require significant effort,
> just add the
> new flag, set the var to no ought to work as you suggest. The
> question
> is rather would it be accepted. If you
Hi,
Does anybody know whether such a -no-static option for the libtool
link mode is feasable?
Can this be implemented by just adding a -no-static option to libtool
that sets the internal libtool variable 'build_old_libs' to 'no' or
would such a feature require some more effort?
Adding this feat
On 2003-07-22T22:02+0900, Peter O'Gorman wrote:
) On Tuesday, July 22, 2003, at 09:37 PM, Sander Niemeijer wrote:
) > A few other libraries, however, are plug-ins (modules created with the
) > '-module' flag) that only need to be delivered as shared libraries.
) Firstly, in case you were wondering
On Tuesday, July 22, 2003, at 11:32 PM, Nick Hudson wrote:
OK, a better question is does anyone run an operating system that
needs this
feature still?
I don't know the answer to this particular question, so I'll answer a
different one :)
This feature, if used more widely, would have been great
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Tuesday 22 July 2003 2:02 pm, Peter O'Gorman wrote:
> > Firstly, in case you were wondering why libtool builds static libraries
> > even for loadable modules, libtool via. ltdl supports loading modules
> > on systems without dynamic loading capabilities using the
>
On Tuesday 22 July 2003 2:32 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Tuesday 22 July 2003 2:02 pm, Peter O'Gorman wrote:
> > > Firstly, in case you were wondering why libtool builds static libraries
> > > even for loadable modules, libtool via. ltdl supports loading modules
On Tuesday 22 July 2003 2:02 pm, Peter O'Gorman wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, July 22, 2003, at 09:37 PM, Sander Niemeijer wrote:
> >
> >
> > In our situation it is not possible to just disable building of static
> > libraries on a global level for our package, since our package
> > provides multiple
On Tuesday, July 22, 2003, at 09:37 PM, Sander Niemeijer wrote:
In our situation it is not possible to just disable building of static
libraries on a global level for our package, since our package
provides multiple libraries and some of them need to be provided in
both static and shared vers
11 matches
Mail list logo
