[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [PATCH] Don't install .la files when --no-la-files is used

From: Roumen Petrov
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Don't install .la files when --no-la-files is used
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2008 22:12:46 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv: Gecko/20080925 SeaMonkey/1.1.12

Hi Russ,

Russ Allbery wrote:
Ralf Wildenhues <address@hidden> writes:
Hello Russ,
* Russ Allbery wrote on Fri, Nov 07, 2008 at 01:20:28AM CET:

The most frequent problem caused by *.la files is that they add a pile
of unnecessary dependencies to shared libraries, which further
entangles package dependencies and makes upgrades unnecessarily hard.
(This is the long-standing problem of including all dependencies
required for static libraries, which aren't needed for shared libraries
on systems that handle transitive dependency closures when loading
shared libraries.)

Which is nicely solved with --as-needed, as long as you don't need to
stick in extra, seemingly-unneeded library dependencies that only become
useful for dlopen'ed modules.

Debian's experience to date is that --as-needed is buggy and breaks a lot
of software, and overall is not a particularly stable solution.  Removing
*.la files so that the unneeded shared libraries aren't linked in the
first place works considerably better at the moment.

Could you point by example how libtool add "pile of unnecessary dependencies" ? Whit this example could you confirm that libtool add more(extra) libraries then specified by project authors ?



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]