[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: libfl.a -> libfl.so?
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 11:40:14PM +0000, David Holland wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 06:52:47PM +0100, Thomas Klausner wrote:
> > When linking a shared library with libtool against libfl.a it
> > complains:
> > *** Warning: linker path does not have real file for library -lfl.
> > *** I have the capability to make that library automatically link in when
> > *** you link to this library. But I can only do this if you have a
> > *** shared version of the library, which you do not appear to have
> > *** because I did check the linker path looking for a file starting
> > *** with libfl and none of the candidates passed a file format test
> > *** using a regex pattern. Last file checked: /usr/lib/libfl.a
> > Is there a reason we don't provide a libfl.so?
> It is tiny and trivial.
So you agree we should add libfl.so? :)
> My vote would be to make libtool less stupid...
What is your suggestion what it should do (in this case)?
I don't think you can assume that .a files are PIC.
Main Index |
Thread Index |