Re: libtool bites us again (aka Libtool's Revenge, part II)
On Mon, Dec 13, 1999 at 04:22:08PM -0500, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 13, 1999 at 02:56:22PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> > <p>
> > Packages that use libtool to create shared libraries must
> > include the <em>.la</em> files in the <em>-dev</em>
> > + packages, if it includes them at all. Dynamically loadable
> > + modules that are created with libtool should not include
> > + the .la file at all, since it is not needed.
> > - packages, with the exception that if the package relies on
> > - libtool's <em>libltdl</em> library, in which case the .la
> > - files must go in the run-time library package. This is a
> > - good idea in general, and especially for static linking
> > - issues.
> > </p>
> But it is my understanding that the library does not (usually) use
> libltdl on itself, another application does. So the library cannot know
> ahead of time whether someone will want to use the libltdl facility.
> Considering also the fact that it's "a good idea in general", why not
> just suck it up and up and always put the .la files in the library
I'm sorry, I misread the sense of the patch. I thought the change was
in the direction of including .la files in lib packages. I'm glad it's
not. (And I'm glad that the patch shortens policy!)
Ignore my message.