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

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

On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 08:09:32AM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> Which doesn't, in any way, promote the idea that we should keep the .la
> files. People who need/want a statically linked binary often want to
> control exactly *which* libraries are statically linked, and will build
> the link command by hand.

This is probably true when performance tuning. However, when I prepare a
binary to submit to a supercomputer, or an executable for a CD (that
should Just Work when I pull it out after two years), I usually just
plonk in a '-static' and be done with it. I'd hate to see this
functionality go. If you ever tried to get, say, ten static libs in the
right order for a medium-sized application, you know what tedious task
I'm taking about. From my personal point of view, removal of .la files
would significantly degrade Debian's usability as a build platform.


Reply to: