Re: Seeking help to resolve a lintian request
On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> On Thu, 2002-09-19 at 12:46, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > On Thu, 19 Sep 2002, Simon Richter wrote:
> > > That .la files are close to useless on GNU systems does not make them
> > > less valuable for portable programs, and unless you want each developer
> > > to patch them out in his .diff.gz (because a good upstream wouldn't
> > > accept a patch that breaks his program on many platforms), your best
> > > option is to leave them in and make sure they don't stand in the way
> > > (which is possible).
> >
> > Wrong. You refresh libtool on the debian-packaged version of the software,
> > and don't bother upstream. Debian libtool should be patched to kill the .la
> > files.
> >
> Of course it shouldn't be!
>
> The Debian libtool is used by any upstream developer who develops on
> Debian.
You're right, of course. Argh, I keep forgetting that. Well, while it is
possible, it would be even worse to add a hack to get libtool to act
differently when compiling stuff for Debian.
Well, .la files must go in -dev packages, then (if included at all), unless
they are for plugins, when they must either not be included, or go with the
plugin, to the same place as the plugin. And they should never ever be
included in the library packages (if libtool requires this, it is
effectively utterly broken and must be fixed, otherwise it fucks up the very
idea of different libs with different sonames being installed at the same
time and selected by ld.so).
Ugh.
--
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
Henrique Holschuh
Reply to: