On Mon, 2011-04-18 at 09:05 +0100, Neil Williams wrote: > On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 09:22:09 -0700 > Fabian Greffrath <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > > Am 17.04.2011 12:43, schrieb Reinhard Tartler: > > > Neil, thank you very much for your insightful summary of the matter. Now > > > it seems pretty clear that this issue cannot be handled in the libav > > > package, but needs to be solved at the pkg-config level. I'm therefore > > > reassigning this bug to pkg-config. > > > > Couldn't we simply drop the *.private fields in the .pc files to > > signalize we don't support static linking? > > It's the dependency of the dependency of one of the Requires fields > which causes the breakage, not the Requires.private. i.e. the > Requires.private can be right but the static linkage can still fail. > > Lack of Requires.private is no indicator of a lack of support for > --static. There are many libraries which could link statically but > which have no need for any data in Requires.private. [...] Libs.private = -fstatic-linking-is-not-supported ;-) Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Once a job is fouled up, anything done to improve it makes it worse.
Description: This is a digitally signed message part