* TODO: should we also build a `static' copy of a convenience

library out of .o files?
This commit is contained in:
Alexandre Oliva 1999-01-20 10:21:01 +00:00 committed by Alexandre Oliva
parent 2a98311f7b
commit c2d159681b
2 changed files with 10 additions and 0 deletions

View File

@ -1,5 +1,8 @@
1999-01-20 Alexandre Oliva <oliva@dcc.unicamp.br>
* TODO: should we also build a `static' copy of a convenience
library out of .o files?
* ltconfig.in (bsdi4*, netbsd*, uts4*, library_names_spec,
soname_spec): removed duplicate dot before $major
Reported by Steven M. Schultz <sms@wlv.iipo.gtegsc.com> (bsdi4*)

7
TODO
View File

@ -98,6 +98,13 @@ version is installed.
symbols to be included in a libtool archive. This would require some
sort of -whole-archive option, as well.
* Currently, convenience libraries (.al) are built from .lo objects,
except when --disable-shared. When we can build both shared and
static libraries, we should probably create a .al out of .lo objects
and also a .a out of .o objects. The .al would only be used to
create shared libraries, whereas the .a would be used for creating
static libraries and programs.
* Need to finalize the documentation, and give a specification of
`.la' files so that people can depend on their format. This also
needs to be done so that DLD uses a public interface to libtool