[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 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
> package?

I'm sorry, I misread the sense of the patch.  I thought the change was
in the direction of including .la files in lib packages.  I'm glad it's
not.  (And I'm glad that the patch shortens policy!)

Ignore my message.


Reply to: