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

Re: Hardcoding of .la file paths in .la files

Le lun 13/10/2003 à 22:19, Steve Langasek a écrit :

> > You're right as for static linking, I thought pkg-config supported
> > --static while it doesn't. Well, maybe it is better that way; I
> > personally feel we should deprecate the whole static linking stuff.
> In which case, we could easily fix all libtool installations by simply
> removing the .la files altogether, and we'll never have any more
> problems with mislinked dynamic executables or libraries.


> But if we're going to do that, then most of the available pkg-config
> settings are *still* wrong; in the above instance, the correct answer
> for dynamic linking is '-Wl,--export-dynamic -lgnomecanvas-2', and lose
> the other 50 entries on that line.

Of course, that means fixing many broken pkg-config files. I don't know
if we can do completely without them, as there are some (e.g. XFree86)
libraries which are still available only in static format.

> Both of these tools are designed primarily to solve problems that do not
> affect stock Debian packages.  We are not part of their target userbase,
> and as such, the tools are suboptimal for what we're trying to achieve.

Just like the whole auto* stuff.

I really feel we should get rid of all these static libraries. Who uses
static linking now that even our glibc doesn't support it correctly
across versions?
 .''`.           Josselin Mouette        /\./\
: :' :           josselin.mouette@ens-lyon.org
`. `'                        joss@debian.org
  `-  Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e=2E?=

Reply to: