Re: Confusion about Libtool archive (*.la) files in -dev' packages
On Mon, Jun 07, 1999 at 04:00:45PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
> http://www.debian.org/Bugs/db/37/37338.html
>
> I am currently working on editing in the policy amendments,
> and I find this amendment quite confusing. Could the rpincipals
> involved in this clarify exactly where the .la files are supposed to
> go? Are they meant for the -dev packages, or the main ones (there was
> a comment about needing the .la files at run time)? Could someone
> also provide a rationale for this? I am not quite upto speed with
> libtool (having never used it -- I program cross platform for non-GNU
> systems ;-()), and I would prefer if I could have the exact wording
> people want to be included in the policy manual.
I'm not qualified to recommend anything unfortunately. From my limited
understanding, including the .la files in the -dev package makes sense if
only for dependencies among static libraries. I did note that libtool
appeared to claim that .la files could be useful for non-development use of
the library, specifically explicit loading and linking; however my gut
reaction is "that's not necessary on sane systems like Debian!".
You should include libtool maintainer Alexandre Oliva <oliva@dcc.unicamp.br>
in the conversation. He's a bit stubborn (as you probably recall), but
always seems to present strong arguments. (You can tell him I said that--we
just got into an argument over bug tracking.) At least he'll be able to
verify the accuracy of your proposed policy addition.
Andrew
Reply to: