|
From: | Szombathelyi György |
Subject: | Re: Linking against indirect dependencies |
Date: | Tue, 25 May 2004 11:37:38 +0200 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; hu; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 |
Bob Friesenhahn Ãrta:
Yes, it's a problem, when someone wants to package his application/library - most times a dependency hell will start. Did you see the thread I linked above?On Mon, 24 May 2004, Albert Chin wrote:dependency_libs doesn't contain just libraries. Maybe LDFLAGS as well, like -pthread. BTW, is it _really_ a problem to link against everything in dependency_libs? Indirectly, this is going to happen anyway even if libtool doesn't do this.
http://lists.kde.org/?l=kde-core-devel&m=108534182408921&w=2
I thinked that libtool hides the platform specific differences, and not enforcing the lowest common features all of the supported platforms. A libtool using developer of course should not care about if linking indirect dependencies are needed or not, but libtool should. For me, portability means that you can recompile & relink the application on another platform, and getting the most out of the target platform is a good thing.Of course the correct answer is that not linking against indirect dependencies is non-portable. Certainly Microsoft Windows DLLs require full linkage, and I believe/suspect that AIX does as well.Libtool always chooses the most portable approach and does not encourage developers to use non-portable platform-specific approaches. If libtool encouraged developers to use non-portable platform-specific techniques, then it would be dealing a blow to the goal of supporting portable software.
Bye, György
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |