[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: autoconf linking with shared object
From: |
Braden McDaniel |
Subject: |
Re: autoconf linking with shared object |
Date: |
Wed, 29 Mar 2006 03:32:37 -0500 |
On Wed, 2006-03-29 at 10:02 +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> You definitely want to put dependent libraries (those `-lfoolib' flags)
> into one of the automake Makefile macros LIBS, someprogram_LDADD,
> libsomelibrary_LIBADD, or similar, and not into *_LDFLAGS.
I hear this advice from time to time (and I have read what the autoconf
and automake manuals have to say). Yet, as a practical matter, -l and -L
flags frequently wind up as part of the same autoconf substitution in
many build systems (e.g., such falls out of the typical usage pattern
for pkg-config) and consequently get put into *_LDFLAGS as a unit. I do
not think I have observed any bad effects from this to date.
Is this advice really still relevant? Are all those packages that apply
-l and -L together as a unit Doing It Wrong?
--
Braden McDaniel <address@hidden>
- autoconf linking with shared object, Matt Kowalczyk, 2006/03/27
- Re: autoconf linking with shared object, Ralf Wildenhues, 2006/03/28
- Re: autoconf linking with shared object, Brian Dessent, 2006/03/28
- Re: autoconf linking with shared object, Matt Kowalczyk, 2006/03/28
- Re: autoconf linking with shared object, Ralf Wildenhues, 2006/03/29
- Re: autoconf linking with shared object,
Braden McDaniel <=
- Re: autoconf linking with shared object, Ralf Wildenhues, 2006/03/29
- Re: autoconf linking with shared object, Andreas Schwab, 2006/03/29
- Re: autoconf linking with shared object, Braden McDaniel, 2006/03/29
- Re: autoconf linking with shared object, Ralf Wildenhues, 2006/03/29