Re: libtool bites us again (aka Libtool's Revenge, part II)
On Sun, Dec 12, 1999 at 12:37:18PM -0200, Cesar Eduardo Barros wrote:
> The latest librep breakage showed us another of libtool's misfeatures: it
> produces a .la file for each library. Originally, it was meant just for
> development (giving the linking parameters, much like the .a and the .so
> unversioned symlink), but I've heard that it's now used by libltdl to help
> dynamic linking. This means that it now needs to be included with the library,
> but since multiple versions of the library can be installed and the .la link is
> not versioned, a conflict will happen.
>
> My proposal:
>
> Let's create a versioned version of the .la file, the same way it is done with
> the .so file, and use it on the binary package. The .la file would be managed
> like the .so. This means (librep example):
No, no, no. libltdl only uses it for libraries that it loads modularly
(like apache modules, if pam used libltdl). There might be 0.01% of
packages that could possibly stand to benefit from this, and even then it
is not _required_ since libltdl can still use them if the shared library
is linked right in the first place. Let's not make all this confusion for
the sake of giving a small amount of packages a slight feature.
--
-----------=======-=-======-=========-----------=====------------=-=------
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` bcollins@debian.org - collinbm@djj.state.va.us - bmc@visi.net '
`---=========------=======-------------=-=-----=-===-======-------=--=---'
Reply to: