RE: [xml] Generating a correct xml2-config for use with --libs
- From: "Igor Zlatkovic" <izlatkovic daenet de>
- To: "Gary Pennington" <Gary Pennington sun com>
- Cc: <xml gnome org>
- Subject: RE: [xml] Generating a correct xml2-config for use with --libs
- Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 16:12:59 +0200
No need to be surprised, it seems like the linker (MSVC?) you
describe and the Sun linker have the same behaviour.
Aha, okay. The lack of such option in Sun's compiler package would
surprise me, but since it is there, I'll withhold my surprises for the
noodle-party tonight :-)
Windows defaults are a bit different. This 'ignore unused libraries'
option is per defult turned on if the program has been compiled without
debug info. If the object files have debugging symbols, it is turned
off.
The reason I wanted to clean up the xml2-config script is
simply because
I want to help those people who aren't knowledgeable about all the
options which their compilation system supports. Sure, knowledgeable
people can use "-z ignore" and thus remain unaffected by the (in the
case of Solaris and dynamic linking) redundant library
specifications in
xml2-config. However, that's not much help to the vast majority of
application developers who don't know all the linker flags on all the
platforms they develop on.
Well, you certainly have the superior expirience on Unix in all areas
and you must know. Still I would say that those application developers
will learn about the option in due time, namely as soon as they start
wondering why their apps reference unused libraries. Once they learn,
they will probably use that option in their programs, regardless if
xml2-config specifies some extra '-l's or not. This they will do for
safety, because other libraries thay happen to use have perhaps a less
friendly config program. Perhaps these application developers are better
helped if they are made aware of the -z linker option, instead of
removing the one thing from xml2-config that can show them the way.
I don't have the problem, for distributing software in the source form
is not a common practice on my platform. Those who compile things
usually know what they are doing... well mostly. I can remember a very
confused one who failed, then came and accused you for supplying Windows
binaries.. ehem :-)
Have a nice weekend,
Igor
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]