On Tue, 31 May 2011 18:48:30 +0200 Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> wrote: > On 2011-05-30 12:16:13 +0100, Simon McVittie wrote: > > libtool .la files are useful if: > > > > * you're linking against a library installed in a directory that isn't > > searched by the dynamic linker by default (e.g. installing a local > > library in --prefix=$HOME, and a program that links that library - > > but this isn't relevant for packaged libraries in /lib or /usr/lib, > > which are searched by default anyway) > [...] > > My main concern is a "make check" on a library that depends on > some other libraries (which may have been installed via Debian > or not, e.g. because I may also want to install versions built > with debug options). If Debian no longer provides .la files, > will the correct version of the libraries still be picked up? What reason is there for this not to happen? I've been clearing .la files from the Debian packages of my own upstream packages for some time and routinely use make check and make distcheck. Many packages in Debian have useful make check test programs and these are generally enabled in Debian builds (and will fail the build, causing a release-critical bug, if the tests fail). No such failed builds have been identified as resulting from removal of dependency_libs data in the .la files or even the removal of the .la file itself as long as the sequence of removal is managed. So Debian already has evidence that make check DOES continue to work whether or not .la files exist. It's not as widespread as simple builds without test suites but the range of packages using make check in a Debian build is sufficiently wide that I see no reason to worry about make check differing from standard make. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
pgppC22DqJC7v.pgp
Description: PGP signature