On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 17:46:35 +0100 James Westby <jw+debian@jameswestby.net> wrote: Hi, thanks for your suggestions. > > * Please use ${binary:Version} and ${source:Version} in preference to > ${Source-Version} in debian/control. > * I would like some more "meat" in the descriptions. > * Lose the extra comments in debian/watch. All done. > * Do you want to ship .a and .la? Some packages are choosing to get > rid of them to avoid certain headaches. Obviously if > packages/programs want to link statically to the libs then ship it. Yes I do, because it might be the case that someone wants to link statically. > The packaging looks ok otherwise. I haven't installed the packages and > tested them though. > > Does anybody else have an opinion on .a and .la files in packages? > .la files are also used for dlopen() to find the correct library name as suggested in the libtool manual: http://www.gnu.org/software/libtool/manual.html#Finding-the-dlname "The most straightforward and flexible implementation is to determine the name at runtime, by finding the installed .la file, and searching it for the following lines # The name that we can dlopen. dlname='dlname'" Hence, it is a good idea to include them. Regards, Philipp Benner
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature