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