On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 09:02:06PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le dim 12/10/2003 à 03:31, Steve Langasek a écrit : > > If I was comfortable that .la files were completely dispensable on > > GNU/Linux systems, I wouldn't hesitate to do that, but I'm not. They > > *do* provide additional information that's useful to people linking > > applications statically; and while we never (rarely) use the static libs > > ourselves, policy does require us to ship them in packages, so it makes > > sense to also provide the additional glue information in the .la's > > whenever possible. When it causes problems for shared libs, though, I > > think it's clear which should take precedence. > > All this additional information can be provided as well by pkg-config, > which is much more flexible and doesn't cause random breakages. $ pkg-config libgnomecanvas-2.0 --libs -Wl,--export-dynamic -lgnomecanvas-2 -lart_lgpl_2 -lpangoft2-1.0 -lgtk-x11-2.0 -lgdk-x11-2.0 -latk-1.0 -lgdk_pixbuf-2.0 -lm -lpangoxft-1.0 -lpangox-1.0 -lpango-1.0 -lgobject-2.0 -lgmodule-2.0 -ldl -lglib-2.0 $ Hmm, nope, pkg-config can at least cause one of the most popular forms of libtool breakage, which is that applications will be linked unnecessarily against indirect library dependencies, making ABI transitions much more difficult than they should be. It also doesn't even provide a complete list of all the indirect library dependencies, so this pkg-config line will even fail on platforms where libtool will succeed. (E.g., try to statically link a binary using the above list without having to append '-lX11'.) And if you use the pkg-config output as input for a libtool-using application, you'll get double the pleasure. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature