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

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

On Thu, Jul 28, 2005 at 02:18:29PM -0400, Jay Berkenbilt wrote:
> > 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.

Yeah, that still doesn't do any good (and yes, libtool would still need to
generate .la files, or else it's no longer serving its purpose), because
upstream isn't going to stand for breaking backwards compatibility, and
that's the only way you could have any control at all over the version of
libtool that an application was trying to use when building -- and that's
not really more control than you also have just by dropping the -dev
dependencies and letting the applications fend for themselves.

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: