[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: getting rid of libtool-brokeness

On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 12:10 AM, Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org> wrote:

> we had a couple of ideas today how we could make libtool behaving
> better than in http://bugs.debian.org/539687
> 5. try to push some functionality upstream to libtool that allows to
> ignore the content of dependency_libs during compilation of dynamic
> libs. Probably a bit hard to do - best would be some environment
> variable that would default to "ignore that". (Unless that goes
> upstream, there is not much that we could do, as libtool is statically
> incorporated in source.)

Fixing this upstream is by far the best way to go. That way it
benefits Fedora, Gentoo[1] and so on as well.

IIRC pkgconfig had a similar issue and that was resolved by the
introduction of Requires.private and Libs.private. How about something
like dependency_libs_private or dependency_libs_shared or similar? I
imagine dependency_libs_shared might allow a transition to occur
slowly without breakage if done the right way. I'm thinking for each
.la file, libtool would check for dependency_libs_shared and use it if
available or use dependency_libs if dependency_libs_shared is not

The transition of upstreams to this will be a lot longer, but once the
upstream support is there, a lintian warning could alert maintainers
to outdated .la files and they could run libtool from debian/rules and
contact upstreams to push the transition.

1. http://blog.flameeyes.eu/tag/libtool



Reply to: