* Matthias Urlichs (smurf@smurf.noris.de) wrote: > > * Josselin Mouette (joss@debian.org) wrote: > >> 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. > > The whole point of the .la files is to encapsulate the "which libraries do > I need to link this" knowledge so that linking with that library, either > statically or dynamically, works without requiring the application's > Makefile to know the library's dependencies. > > That kind of external knowledge _is_ unnecessary for correctly-linked(!!) > ELF shared libraries. Libtool doesn't yet know that, however; it was > written for systems which can't do this. I thought libtool upstream was working on fixing this already, actually. > Best solution, IMHO: Add an option to libtool to disregard .la files. > This option needs to be the default for shared linking of both > applications and libraries on Debian systems. I guess this could work. Either way though, -dev debs shouldn't be depending on other -dev debs. Stephen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature