"Hoyt, David" hoyt6@llnl.gov writes:
The problem w/ my patch is the use case where the user specified --disable-shared. In that case, it would build the static libs, but my patch looks explicitly to link against the shared lib: libnettle.dll.a. I explicitly used libnettle.dll.a b/c it built both the static lib and the shared lib and I was unsure which one it would choose to link against (shared or static lib).
I'm not sure I follow you. In the case that shared libaries are built (--enable-shared), the hogweed dll should be dynamically linked with the nettle dll (and linked statically or dynamically to gmp, depending on what's available). I don't see any urgent need to make that configurable, to make it possible to build a shared hogweed dll linked statically with nettle.
And in the case only static libraries are built, the various LIBHOGWEED_* variables in the patch are not used, and the static libraries libnettle.a and libhogweed.a are not linked to anything, they're just archives of object files.
Have you considered using dolt (dolt.freedesktop.org)?
No, I haven't heard about it before. It looks like a step in the right direction. Even though I'd prefer not to have any wrapper script at all, just make sure that the Makefile uses the right flags when compiling and linking.
I'm more looking at nettle to install pkg-config so others can pick it up.
Sounds reasonable. I'm not going to give it a high priority, but I'll happily take patches, assuming they're not too difficult to understand and maintain.
Regards, /Niels