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

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

On Sun, Dec 12, 1999 at 09:41:26PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> So the bottom line is, we don't really need .la files, we don't really
> benefit from them. However since they are installed by libtool we should
> allow them, but _only_ where it does the most good and doesn't cause more
> problems than it solves, which is in the -dev package.

So how about the following change to section 4.2 of policy:

 	  Packages that use libtool to create shared libraries must
 	  include the <em>.la</em> files in the <em>-dev</em>
+	  packages.
-	  packages, with the exception that if the package relies on
-	  libtool's <em>libltdl</em> 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.



  Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, QMW, Univ. of London. J.D.Gilbey@qmw.ac.uk
        Debian GNU/Linux Developer,  see http://www.debian.org/~jdg
  Donate free food to the world's hungry: see http://www.thehungersite.com/

Reply to: