Re: libfl.a -> libfl.so?

[Thomas Klausner <wiz%NetBSD.org@localhost>]

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.
 Thomas