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

Re: conflicting bug reports

* Josselin Mouette (joss@debian.org) wrote:
> Le mercredi 18 août 2004 à 08:34 -0400, Stephen Frost a écrit :
> > * Steve Langasek (vorlon@debian.org) wrote:
> > > However, a recent discussion with the libtool maintainer revealed that a
> > > subtle bug with libtool requires that any .la file used for building
> > > other libraries have all of its .la dependencies also installed on the
> > > system.  This means that any -dev packages that contain .la files
> > > should, for the time being, continue to depend on the -dev packages of
> > > libraries they depend on. :/
> > 
> > Wouldn't it make more sense to drop the entirely unnecessary .la files
> > and the dependency from the -dev package?
> That would be great, but would also make static builds fail.

I don't believe we should, or intend to, support static builds directly
in our dependency system anyway.  Is it really very difficult to get
libtool to do a static build w/o the .la files?  If you know the
libraries you need I'd expect you could just tell libtool about them.
An interesting thought might be a libx-static package which contains
both the .la files and a dependency on the libx-dev, and the -static
of the other libraries (which would then pull in their -dev packages..).

Or perhaps have libx-dev just have the headers and .so symlink and then
have the .a, .la and dependencies in the -static.  Of course, this
increases the number of debs created by libraries (again).  Personally,
I tend to doubt that it'd be worth that increase just to support static
builds but I don't think that's a decision I get to make.

I get the feeling that this has been discussed before too for some


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: