Re: libtool .la archives - name collision?
On Thu, Sep 23, 1999 at 09:54:10AM +0800, Mikolaj J. Habryn wrote:
> >>>>> "BC" == Ben Collins <bcollins@debian.org> writes:
>
> BC> No because the .la files only go into the -dev package for the
> BC> library,
>
> Section 4.2 of the policy manual, according to my reading, seems to
> disagree...
>
> Packages that use libtool to create shared libraries must include the
> _.la_ files in the _-dev_ packages, with the exception that if the
> package relies on libtool's _libltdl_ library, in which case the .la
> files must go in the run-time library package. This is a good idea in
> general, and especially for static linking issues.
>
> It seems to be suggesting that .la files in the run-time library
> package is a good idea in general, and even if I'm misreading that,
> they definitely go in if the libraries are used by something relying
> on libltdl.
>
> Or am I missing something?
It referes to "static linking issues" which only come about when you have
the -dev package installed. I agree that it should not suggest that putting
the .la files into the main lib package is a "good idea in general" though.
However, most libraries that are used by libltdl are in fact modules and
not really stricken with the same versioning and dependencies that normal
dynamically linked libraries are (ie, openldap2's modules are created with
libtool and linked with libltdl, but there wont ever be a need to install
two versions of these because they have to match the dep with the server).
Ben
Reply to: