On Sat, Oct 11, 2003 at 10:57:38AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Sat, Oct 11, 2003 at 03:21:50AM -0400, Joey Hess wrote: > > I'm coming into this thread very late, with what may be a stupid > > question, but can anyone tell me if the breakage could be avoided by > > just deleting the .la files in question? > > Yes, it can. I've advocated this on a number of occasions where .la > files were doing more harm than good. They are really only of use when > working with static libs (which is almot never the case in Debian > itself), or when making poor use of ltdl plugin loaders. Please propose a policy amendment that is worded clearly enough that slope-heads like me can undersand it. E.g., libxft-dev (currently stuck in queue/new), ships a libXft.a static object, but I suspect that's not what you meant by "working with static libs". Or is it? -- G. Branden Robinson | Debian GNU/Linux | kernel panic -- causal failure branden@debian.org | universe will now reboot http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature