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

Re: A plan to get rid of unnecessary package dependencies

On Mon, Oct 02, 2006, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> The problem is that .la files provide a way to pull in all the
> dependent libraries for static linking, and unless you also ship .pc
> files, there is no other automated way to do this.  Some people
> apparently care about this capability, which is why we can't just
> delete _all_ .la files _now_.

 I think we're already aiming at the removal of *.la files, at least
 some maintainers are.  I'm removing them from leaf packages or as soon
 as the rdeps permit it, and I'm also using the "dependency_libs
 erasing" that was introduced in libxml2 when I can't remove the *.la
 files -- this renders *.la files useless but at least not harmful.

 On the other hand, with your proposal, we end up keeping the *.la
 files.  I certainly understand that they ease static linking, but this
 also means that we need to depend on all libraries down the dependency
 tree (${la:Depends}) of each package to ensure that its *.la files are
 functional for static linking, even with the modified dependency_libs
   Since there are other ways to offer a static linking solution (adding
 pkg-config files) and since not all packages use libtool, I think it
 might be time to suggest people not to rely on *.la files for static

Loïc Minier <lool@dooz.org>

Reply to: