* Josselin Mouette (joss@debian.org) wrote: > Le mercredi 18 août 2004 à 08:34 -0400, Stephen Frost a écrit : > > * Steve Langasek (vorlon@debian.org) wrote: > > > However, a recent discussion with the libtool maintainer revealed that a > > > subtle bug with libtool requires that any .la file used for building > > > other libraries have all of its .la dependencies also installed on the > > > system. This means that any -dev packages that contain .la files > > > should, for the time being, continue to depend on the -dev packages of > > > libraries they depend on. :/ > > > > Wouldn't it make more sense to drop the entirely unnecessary .la files > > and the dependency from the -dev package? > > That would be great, but would also make static builds fail. I don't believe we should, or intend to, support static builds directly in our dependency system anyway. Is it really very difficult to get libtool to do a static build w/o the .la files? If you know the libraries you need I'd expect you could just tell libtool about them. An interesting thought might be a libx-static package which contains both the .la files and a dependency on the libx-dev, and the -static of the other libraries (which would then pull in their -dev packages..). Or perhaps have libx-dev just have the headers and .so symlink and then have the .a, .la and dependencies in the -static. Of course, this increases the number of debs created by libraries (again). Personally, I tend to doubt that it'd be worth that increase just to support static builds but I don't think that's a decision I get to make. I get the feeling that this has been discussed before too for some reason... Stephen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature