Re: libtool bites us again (aka Libtool's Revenge, part II)
[Cc'd to -policy to discuss potential rewriting of parts of the .la
stuff. See the discussion on -devel for the problem.]
On Sun, Dec 12, 1999 at 05:01:17PM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > So your solution is... what? Should we not include .la files in
> > packages? Currently policy says that we need to include them, which,
> > as things stand, blows multiple installed versions out of the
>
> IIRC that policy was introduced for -dev packages. The .la should be
> installed along side the real .a library for the odd chance someone needs
> to statically link and is co-incidently using libtool too.
It's section 4.2 of policy. The last couple of paragraphs are not at
all clear on this point. While they say that the .la files should go
in the -dev package, they also seem to encourage putting them in the
runtime package instead.
Maybe this one needs to go to -policy to thrash out.
Julian
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, QMW, Univ. of London. J.D.Gilbey@qmw.ac.uk
Debian GNU/Linux Developer, see http://www.debian.org/~jdg
Donate free food to the world's hungry: see http://www.thehungersite.com/
Reply to: