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

Re: libtool crap [Re: SDL c102 transition]

On Fri, 2003-03-14 at 03:01, Chris Cheney wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 10:38:51AM +0000, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > That would be a stupid thing to do.  Why not just campaign to have a
> > tiny change to libtool added to declare that Linux *really can* recurse
> > shared libraries as expected.  You'd have to check with every libc + ld
> > version combination of course, and provide ample regression tests. 
> > Nobody's bothered to do this yet, so the libtool upstream understandably
> > play it safe.
> > 
> > If you do, I'll happily patch Debian's package and campaign for the
> > patch upstream.
> Lets do this for Debian and if it works submit it upstream.  If you let
> me know once this is in Debian's libtool I'll rebuild KDE using it.

I'm not patching the Debian libtool with this until I *KNOW* it works. 
The other way around is not acceptable.

Debian libtool isn't normally used by Debian maintainers, unless they
libtoolize && aclocal && autoconf their package.  It *IS* used by
software developers who use Debian.

The way libtool currently works does not affect the second, and most
important, type negatively at all.  It actually can slightly improve
application loading time iirc.

It only negatively affects the first type, because dpkg-shlibdeps ends
up producing dependencies for dependencies' dependencies.  And this
first type probably for the most part AREN'T using the Debian libtool
package, but the libtool that the upstream developer used.

Scott James Remnant     Have you ever, ever felt like this?  Had strange
http://netsplit.com/      things happen?  Are you going round the twist?

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: