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

Re: conflicting bug reports

On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 10:32:34PM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Hi, Stephen Frost 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.

If you remove .la files, what you'll have instead is more upstreams
hard-coding lists of libraries to link against, which would put us right
back where we started with gratuitous ELF dependencies.

> 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.

Libtool *does* know this in current versions.

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: