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

Re: should -dev libraries depending on other -dev packages?



On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 17:08 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> 
> > I'd need to check the source, which I don't have time to do
> just-now,
> > but I thought there was provision for static and shared linking
> having
> > different needs.
> 
> There is, but libtool itself has a blemish that ensures it will always
> traverse .la file dependencies, and fail if they're not found, even
> when
> linking dynamically.

Sounds like a bug rather than a designed in feature. libtools reason for
existence is to abstract out these things.
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=419228 is likely
related.
as is http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=419228.
and http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=492220.

> Scott James Remnant has suggested that one solution would be for
> Debian to
> replace libtool with a very small shell script for our own
> package-building
> purposes.  But if we don't do that, then we shouldn't have .la files
> around;
> they just encourage libtool to do stupid things at build time.

.la files will always encourage libtool to do stupid things until we
actually get the behaviour we want upstream :). And not having .la files
will cause static linking to fail, unless of course we hand craft .pc
files to list the hidden dependencies :- which is something that libtool
knows and should be spitting out cleanly for us.

None of the bugs above have been forward upstream; Ralf, do you think
they are reasonable candidates to forward, or is more info needed before
we do that?

-Rob

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Reply to: