[MPlayer-dev-eng] [PATCH] configure: linking against static libraries is preferred on OS/2

[Reimar Döffinger]

On Tue, Dec 02, 2014 at 12:16:39PM +0900, KO Myung-Hun wrote:
> Hi/2.
> 
> Reimar Döffinger wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 12:15:21PM +0900, KO Myung-Hun wrote:
> >> ---
> >>  configure | 5 ++++-
> >>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/configure b/configure
> >> index fd2b115..81a2e18 100755
> >> --- a/configure
> >> +++ b/configure
> >> @@ -4338,7 +4338,7 @@ fi #if linux
> >>  echocheck "pkg-config"
> >>  _pkg_config=pkg-config
> >>  if $($_pkg_config --version > /dev/null 2>&1); then
> >> -  if test "$ld_static"; then
> >> +  if test "$ld_static" || os2 ; then
> >>      _pkg_config="$_pkg_config --static"
> >>    fi
> >>    echores "yes"
> >> @@ -8063,6 +8063,9 @@ echores "$_dvdnav"
> >>  
> >>  extra_ldflags="$extra_ldflags $libm"
> >>  
> >> +# Linking against static libraries is preferred on OS/2
> >> +os2 && extra_ldflags="-Wl,-static $extra_ldflags"
> > 
> > Why, what is special about OS/2 that it should default to static?
> 
> Without this, OS/2 ld tries to link against DLLs. Then DLL hells wait
> for us. I don't want to fall into those hells.

That isn't any different from Windows.

> > Especially compared to e.g. Windows (where people for distribution
> > will basically always link statically, too).
> 
> Even if they have both static and shared libraries ? And without any
> additional flags ?

I mean, on Windows people have to explicitly specify if they want to
use static libraries, and I just don't see a convincing reason why
OS/2 should behave differently from everything else.
There is both the option of not installing shared libraries and
--enable-static, I am just not convinced the minor convenience
of a different default is worth extra code and making OS/2 behave
differently from everything else, including Windows.