* Steve Langasek (vorlon@debian.org) wrote: > On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 08:57:51PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > > * Steve Langasek (vorlon@debian.org) wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 07:20:44PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > > > > libtool is broken in this regard and needs to be fixed to survive > > > > missing files. > > > > Then fix it instead of giving people bad advice. > > > Do you actually have anything beyond "libtool breaks otherwise, so it > > *must* be good!"? Here's some advice: rm *.la. Yay, fixes the problem > > *and* doesn't require everyone to add in dependencies that end up > > pulling in hundreds of unneeded packages when trying to build something. > > Dropping .la files, without also dropping .a files, will unnecessarily > complicate matters for anyone statically linking against that lib. As long > as we still nominally support static linking, I expect that most lib > maintainers are not going to be willing to do this. > > But ok, yes, that is an option; let's spell the options out completely: > > - Don't ship .la files in the -dev package; don't depend on any other -dev > packages except those whose headers you need. This gives optimal results > for shared linking by pruning all unnecessary build-dependencies and > dependencies; but it also screws over anyone trying to do static linking, > who now has to go *recursively* hunt down the package name for each of the > library dependencies, based only on the names of the symbols exported. > (So why would anyone ship the static libs at this point...?) If we want to support static linking then let's break it off into it's own '-static' package with appropriate dependencies. Personally I don't think it's really worth it and we should just go ahead and drop the static libraries too. It'd certainly make the -dev packages alot smaller. Maybe then we could just put -dbg stuff in the -dev packages. :) > - Kill the .la files and .a files. Drop support for static linking. Not > something that should be done lightly and without prior project-wide > discussion. We've had that discussion before. Last I recall there wasn't really a huge fight to keep them. Stephen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature