On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 09:59:34PM +0000, Scott James Remnant wrote: > > 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. From what I can tell, the .pc files already contain enough information to distinguish between direct and indirect dependencies. > > 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) How about if we just not allow ports of Debian based on such bass-ackwards linkers? Just because upstreams feel obligated to support every stone age library implementation available doesn't mean Debian should. Tolerating such known-buggy designs would erode one of Debian's greatest strengths as a platform. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature