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: