Hi Gary,
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 01:49:10PM CET:
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
[ tests for static linking ]
Okay, thanks for the explanation. I had forgotten much of the history :-(
In light of these facts, then yes, please do commit this patch.
Done now. Sorry for the
Hi Gary,
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 11:03:17PM CET:
In principle, this seems like a good thing to go in, except that I still
have one nagging doubt: If 1.5.22 is the only release with the
regressed semantics for -static, then for bugwards compatibility, I'd be
inclined
* Ralf Wildenhues wrote on Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 10:29:33PM CET:
* Ralf Wildenhues wrote on Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 02:01:53PM CET:
I will followup to this mail (to libtool-patches only for size) with a
patch to implement per-deplib flags for programs (for CVS HEAD) and add
comprehensive
Hallo Ralf,
In principle, this seems like a good thing to go in, except that I still
have one nagging doubt: If 1.5.22 is the only release with the
regressed semantics for -static, then for bugwards compatibility, I'd be
inclined to revert to it's former meaning with years old pedigree, and
come
* Ralf Wildenhues wrote on Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 02:01:53PM CET:
I will followup to this mail (to libtool-patches only for size) with a
patch to implement per-deplib flags for programs (for CVS HEAD) and add
comprehensive tests for the static flags.
Here goes the test. Note that the tests
