Re: libtool bites us again (aka Libtool's Revenge, part II)
On Sun, Dec 12, 1999 at 09:41:26PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> So the bottom line is, we don't really need .la files, we don't really
> benefit from them. However since they are installed by libtool we should
> allow them, but _only_ where it does the most good and doesn't cause more
> problems than it solves, which is in the -dev package.
So how about the following change to section 4.2 of policy:
<p>
Packages that use libtool to create shared libraries must
include the <em>.la</em> files in the <em>-dev</em>
+ packages.
- 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>
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: