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

Re: SUMMARY: Re: shared library -dev package naming proposal

Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> wrote:

> It doesn't exist; I think it's a great idea.  Perhaps a tool named
> dh_libtool, which populates a substvar named ${libtool:Depends}?

Sounds good to me.

I'm going to be leaving my current job in a few weeks and taking
several weeks off between jobs.  I'll try to work on it then along
with some other debian tasks that I've been putting off.  I can't
imagine it would be very difficult.

> FWIW, detecting a fixed libtool would be rather difficult, since it's the
> libtool used by the depending application which does the recursion and
> therefore needs to be fixed.

I was thinking we'd be able to tell from the .la file what we needed
to do.  If a new libtool still generated a .la file, perhaps it could
put some kind of version indicator or something similar.  Anyway, it's
not clear to me what a fixed libtool would do differently (I don't
know libtool that well) though.  Anyway, I've been looking for an
excuse to dig into this.  Once I could clearly articulate why libtool
is broken and what a non-broken libtool would look like, it will be
much clearer what kind of strategy would work in both cases.


Jay Berkenbilt <qjb@debian.org>

Reply to: