Re: [xml] Generating a correct xml2-config for use with --libs

[Gary Pennington <Gary Pennington sun com>]

Justin Fletcher wrote:

> In message <3D08B38A 90302 sun com>
>          Gary Pennington <Gary Pennington sun com> wrote:
>
>  
>
> > Justin Fletcher wrote:
> >
> >    
> >
> > > In message <3D089E60 2040700 sun com>
> > >         Gary Pennington <Gary Pennington sun com> wrote:
> > >      
> > >
> > > > Stefan Kost wrote:
> > > >        
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Gary,
> > > > >
> > > > > but libxml2 does networking (see nanoftp and the likes).
> > > > >
> > > > > Stefan
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >          
> > > > I know, which is why libxml2 links with the appropriate libraries
> > > > (-lsocket etc). However, that doesn't mean that any application which
> > > > links with libxml2 must also link with the networking libraries.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >        
> > > In the first place, if you link a library (xml) against another library
> > > (sockets) then you have added a chunk to that former library which is
> > > unnecessary duplication.
> > >
> > >      
> > I'm not sure I understand your point. What you describe sounds like what
> > would happen with static linking, but not with dynamic linking. You
> > would simply be adding a dependancy to libxml2 to an existing dynamic
> > library. Sure there may be an entry in a linker table, but you wouldn't
> > be adding in any executable code.
> >    
>
> My apologies. There was no reference in any of the thread to dynamic linking,
> and all discussion seemed to be focused around linking itself, rather than
> directed at dynamic linking.
>
>  
I'm also apologizing for generating so much noise over such a small thing.

I hadn't realised that it wasn't clear that I was referring only to 
dynamic linking. (Actually, I hadn't even considered that anyone would 
bother with static linking in this day and age.)

I'll consider making this a Solaris specific patch as Daniel suggests.

Gary