[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: removal of .la files from Debian and a possible solution to the libt

From: Mike Frysinger
Subject: Re: removal of .la files from Debian and a possible solution to the libtool shared libs problem
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 13:09:23 -0400
User-agent: KMail/1.12.0 (Linux/; KDE/4.3.0; x86_64; ; )

On Tuesday 25 August 2009 12:42:19 Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Aug 2009, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >> Relying on the OS's implicit dependency features seems to be an
> >> approach which is fraught with peril.
> >
> > why ?
> When viewing the issue through Linux package-maintainer spectacles
> everything looks pretty straightforward since the environment and
> packages are well managed and tested prior to deployment.  Any
> failures can be usefully corrected.  Libraries are carefully built
> with well-managed partial dependency lists.  If you consider the case
> where someone installs and builds everything from a random collection
> of source packages on a random Linux release, then the situation is
> different.
> This issue has some up oodles of times.  Obviously there is a good
> reason for the complaints (Linux equivalent of "DLL hell") but the
> solution in libtool needs to be assured to work everywhere, and not
> just on well-managed well-manicured recent Linux.

the "dll hell" issue you refer to really doesnt have much (anything?) to do 
with libtool.  that's a binary package issue.

making the code use reduced library sets for only linux targets is fine by me.  
libtool already has plenty of target-specific code based on the quality of 
library handling.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

reply via email to

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