Re: [Chicken-users] Mac OS X static library names

[Thomas Christian Chust]

Brandon Van Every wrote:

> Apple has deliberately depreciated static linking of user executables on
> Mac OS X.   Any time you try to link statically with Apple's ld, if a
> dynamic library of the same name is available, it grabs that instead. 
> Not sure if the Autoconf build is affected by this, but the CMake build
> is.

Hello,

the autotools builds use GNU libtool to wrap all compiler and linker
calls and libtool somehow manages to pass a correct command line to the
MacOS X linker.

> We worked around it by disabling the building and installation of
> static executables. [...]
> 
> We could rename the static libraries on Mac OS X to things like
> libchicken-s.a.  This would make it easy for users to avoid the ld
> behavior, as static and dynamic libs would have different names.  Do Mac
> OS X users think this is worth doing?

Personally, I am perfectly happy with the dynamic libraries and
executables and would always try to use those if at all possible. And if
I really need the static libraries, I know how to link to them whatever
name they have.

I would only change the behaviour of the build if it doesn't mean a lot
of work. If the library names were changed, though, I would try to keep
them identical across all platforms to reduce confusion of the users ;-)

cu,
Thomas