Re: libtool's .la files
Hi Marcelo,
On 4 May, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> On Tue, May 04, 1999 at 02:15:31PM -0500, Ossama Othman wrote:
>
> > * Reverted my "correction" of the libltdl* package name. The soname
> > of the libltdl libraries is currently 0.1.1, therefore the libltdl
> > packages should be named libltdl0.1, according to current Debian
> > policy.
>
> if the soname is libltdl.so.0.1.1 the package should be called libltdl0.1.1;
> if, OTOH, the soname is libltdl.so.0 (which is more likely, given libtool
> generates that kind of sonames), then the package should be called
> libltdl0
*sigh*
I think I am confusing what the definition of "soname" is. However, I
believe you are correct. Looks like I'll have to do another libtool
upload and correct my previous one. :( Thanks for correcting me. Much
appreciated.
> > - The latest libtool can take advantage of installed libtool
> > archive (`*.la') files. As such, included `libltdl.la' in
> > the libltdl0.1-dev package.
>
> Interesting point. There's no policy regarding .la files (no mention of
> ".la" in policy). If the .la files are actually useful, policy should be
> amended. Ossama?
Indeed. It was Thomas Tanner, of the libtool team, who pointed out the
usefulness of `.la' files with libtool 1.3a and higher. At first
glance, it certainly seems like a good thing to install `.la' files in
`-dev' packages. However, Ben Collins pointed out potential library
directory pollution, which I'll address in my response to his e-mail.
However, right now I'm leaning toward including them in `-dev' packages.
-Ossama
--
Ossama Othman <othman@cs.wustl.edu>
Center for Distributed Object Computing, Washington University, St. Louis
58 60 1A E8 7A 66 F4 44 74 9F 3C D4 EF BF 35 88 1024/8A04D15D 1998/08/26
Reply to: