Re: removal of .la files from Debian and a possible solution to the libtool shared libs problem

[Anssi Hannula]

Paul Wise wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-08-25 at 17:46 +0300, Anssi Hannula wrote:
> 
>> I don't understand what the proposed dependency_libs_shared would be for.
>>
>> dependency_libs contains the dependencies of a library. These are needed
>> when linking statically. These are also needed when linking dynamically,
>> but only on certain systems (they are not needed on normal linux systems).
>>
>> I think the proper way to solve this is to not link to dependency_libs
>> when linking dynamically on systems where it is not needed to link to
>> those. I haven't seen any correctly working patches that implement this.
> 
> I don't know enough about the issue, nor the reason why pkgconfig has
> both Libs.private/Requires.private and Libs/Requires.

AFAICS Libs.private is pretty much equivalent to dependency_libs.

> I would suggest
> you post in the thread asking what the proper upstream solution would
> look like. People who are more knowledgeable are likely to answer any
> questions you have.

You mean to subscribe on the debian development list? I'd think this
list would be the more appropriate place for discussing a proper
upstream solution.

-- 
Anssi Hannula