Re: libtool bites us again (aka Libtool's Revenge, part II)
On Mon, Dec 13, 1999 at 04:22:08PM -0500, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 13, 1999 at 02:56:22PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> > <p>
> > Packages that use libtool to create shared libraries must
> > include the <em>.la</em> files in the <em>-dev</em>
> > + packages, if it includes them at all. Dynamically loadable
> > + modules that are created with libtool should not include
> > + the .la file at all, since it is not needed.
> > - 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.
> > </p>
> But it is my understanding that the library does not (usually) use
> libltdl on itself, another application does. So the library cannot know
> ahead of time whether someone will want to use the libltdl facility.
> Considering also the fact that it's "a good idea in general", why not
> just suck it up and up and always put the .la files in the library
The reason that I cross-posted this to -policy was that this just bit
us. libfoo3 and libfoo4 both contained the .la files as recommended,
and hey presto! there was a conflict between the packages, which
caused great difficulties in installing both simultaneously, and is
against policy. However, there is only one libfoo-dev package, and
that can contain the .la files.
Since I am no technical expert on these issues, I am going to step
back from the discussion at this point.
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/