[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: libtool bites us again (aka Libtool's Revenge, part II)

On Mon, Dec 13, 1999 at 10:54:01AM +1100, Mikolaj J. Habryn wrote:
> >>>>> "JG" == Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ualberta.ca> writes:
>     JG> Indeed, if libtool cannot make use of the proper means to load
>     JG> and find shlibs on linux then it is IMHO Pure Evil(tm) We
>     JG> should not have to suffer just because other platforms are
>     JG> underfeatured.
>   So your solution is... what? Should we not include .la files in
> packages? Currently policy says that we need to include them, which,
> as things stand, blows multiple installed versions out of the
> water. librep isn't that much of a problem currently, since there's
> precisely one package that uses it, but this is something that needs a 
> solution.

You include them only in the -dev packages. Only one version should be
installable at any time for a particular library. For example:

libfoo1-dev (which provides and conflicts with libfoo-dev) contains the
libfoo.la file

libfoo2-dev (which also provides and conflicts with libfoo-dev) also
contains libfoo.la

Only one of these will be installable at any single point in time. So
there is no problem with the .la existing in both packages.

/  Ben Collins  --  ...on that fantastic voyage...  --  Debian GNU/Linux   \
`     bcollins@debian.org  -  collinbm@djj.state.va.us  -  bmc@visi.net    '

Reply to: