On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 05:33:00PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 03:49:23PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: > > The .la files contain dependency information that can be used to aid in > > calculating dependency trees when linking applications against the > > libraries. Applications that build using libtool are thus spared from > > maintainer error when identifying library dependencies by hand, which is > > only right, given how much else is inflicted on users of libtool. > Isn't that only needed for static linking? I don't know if it's used for shared libs or not. One way or the other, if they could be needed at build-time, they should be placed in the respective -dev package for the library (along with .a and .so), and indeed, most packages do ship the .la files there. > I'd suggest that, if they're really needed, they not go in /usr/lib; perhaps > /usr/lib/libtool/. They're data files for libtool, not libraries. And *.so, rather than being libraries themselves, are symlinks for the linker to use when resolving library names; but we still put them in /usr/lib. :) > (Does libtool actually find *.la files in /usr/lib?) It's my understanding that it does. I haven't done any empirical testing to verify this. Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
pgpuymJt0LmzW.pgp
Description: PGP signature