This is the mail archive of the
automake@gnu.org
mailing list for the automake project.
Re: Better to use LIBADD always and never LDADD?
- From: <cs at gnumatica dot com>
- To: guidod-2003- at gmx dot de
- Cc: automake at gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 15:08:14 -0700 (MST)
- Subject: Re: Better to use LIBADD always and never LDADD?
- References: <3EA4643B.2000602@gmx.de>
> you can ensure that some options go before the
> others, e.g. flags go before library references.
Guido
Thanks. I'm sorry I did not get the context of your reply.
Are you giving a reason why LDADD is useful?
Are you giving a reason why LTADD should always
be used? I didn't understand.
Chris
cs at gnumatica dot com schrieb:
> For "convenience libraries" I just successfully
> used LDADD. It looks like LIBADD would also have
> worked which uses LIBTOOL.....
>
> I think LDADD is only for stuff you will *link*
> with executable and LIBADD is more powerful and used
> for other things like making real libraries you really
> intend to install on system.
>
> If true, wouldn't it be a good idea to get in habit
> of using LIBADD (and Libtool) for everything?
>
> i.e.
> Why use 2 commands if 1 does both functions?
>
> Chris
>
>
>
>
>