Re: Development packages.
Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> schrieb:
> * Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder (avbidder@fortytwo.ch) wrote:
>> On Sunday 21 March 2004 20.49, Stephen Frost wrote:
>>
>> > .la files shouldn't be included in anything, they're just plain broken.
>>
>> 940 .la files on my system. Report bugs?
> [...]
>> So either you don't mean that absolutely, or three's a few buggy packages out
>> there.
>
> It's the glorious brokenness that is libtool. Basically, libtool needs
> to be fixed to not use the stupid things on systems that don't need them
> (like, oh, all of Debian). I don't know that filing bug reports would
> be useful until libtool is fixed because I imagine most maintainers who
> havn't actually run into the problems caused by .la files will just
> whine "libtool did it".
Yes, it did :-|. Could you point me to a documentation where I could
read about these problems, and under what weird circumstances it will be
a bug nevertheless if I don't install the *la files?
I'm asking because - hm, well - in the NM process I promised not to
package a library soon, and now a month later I have write access to
tetex-bin's cvs. And libkpathsea is going to switch from its own hacked
libtool to the standard one, including all standard errors...
TIA, Frank
--
Frank Küster, Biozentrum der Univ. Basel
Abt. Biophysikalische Chemie
Reply to: