On Mon, 2004-03-22 at 21:29, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Sun, Mar 21, 2004 at 08:18:35PM +0000, Roger Leigh wrote: > > Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes: > > > > We shouldn't be recommending providing staticlly linked libs for people > > > to use, even in the 'fast moving' case- if it's that fast then it > > > probably shouldn't be in Debian and that's just life. > > > > .la files shouldn't be included in anything, they're just plain broken. > > > Even with static libraries? The .la does contain dependency > > information. I know that using pkg-config .pc files can eliminate > > this case, but not everything using libtool is using pkg-config yet. > > pkg-config is a *far* worse offender than libtool. With libtool, we > have some hope of getting these things right in the near future; > pkg-config, OTOH, doesn't even know there *is* a difference between > static and shared libs, so can't be taught to handle them differently > without a lot of growing pains. Please don't add pkg-config to packages > that don't already have the misfortune of using it! > I've got half a mind, if pkg-config upstream haven't shown any signs of activity once I've finished fighting my current battles to start developing it further myself. Giving it some idea of what's a dependency library and what's a 2nd (or even 3rd) level dependency would be nice, along with some "I'm linking statically" and "I'm cross-compiling" logic. Maybe even make it play nice with Libtool. > But shipping .la files in non-dev packages should still be a hanging > offense. > Plugins using libltdl probably need them ... though not until some of the more exotic ports come to fruition. "Debian Solaris" anyone? :o) Scott -- Have you ever, ever felt like this? Had strange things happen? Are you going round the twist?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part