Re: Release goal: Getting rid of unneeded *.la / emptying dependency_libs
- To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
- Subject: Re: Release goal: Getting rid of unneeded *.la / emptying dependency_libs
- From: Peter Samuelson <peter@p12n.org>
- Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 09:17:36 -0500
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20090903141736.GC7919@p12n.org>
- In-reply-to: <e13a36b30908252116v7c5c9967h5df9f3ced8714327@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <20090816161059.GB29392@mails.so.argh.org> <20090817065032.GC29392@mails.so.argh.org> <20090823090712.GK29392@mails.so.argh.org> <20090825032804.GB7919@p12n.org> <e13a36b30908242059k5ba7ac6eyad73f928d3dcdc3d@mail.gmail.com> <e13a36b30908252116v7c5c9967h5df9f3ced8714327@mail.gmail.com>
[Paul Wise]
> Summarizing the upstream thread, it seems the solution they prefer is
> to just ignore dependency_libs when linking dynamically.
Sounds good to me. I can't comment on the Libs/Libs.private split,
except that if Steve is right and this is mostly for Gtk, they're
already pretty married to pkg-config, so I wouldn't think libtool would
have to support this.
Does upstream have a timeline? After they make the change, how long
before we in Debian can assume our issues are all addressed? I ask
because most upstreams include a private copy of libtool, and I don't
know if we'd feel as though we need to accommodate that.
--
Peter Samuelson | org-tld!p12n!peter | http://p12n.org/
Reply to: