Re: Hardcoding of .la file paths in .la files
Daniel Kobras <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> 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.
It is already gone. If the binary uses NSS you have a good chance that
it won't work with a different glibc. Just
check http://bugs.debian.org/libc6 foor examples.