[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: Richard Purdie
Subject: Re: removal of .la files from Debian and a possible solution to the libtool shared libs problem
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 23:37:54 +0100

On Tue, 2009-08-25 at 20:44 +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * Bob Friesenhahn wrote on Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 05:17:49PM CEST:
> > On Tue, 25 Aug 2009, Anssi Hannula wrote:
> > >
> > >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.
> > 
> > Relying on the OS's implicit dependency features seems to be an
> > approach which is fraught with peril.
> With GNU/Linux, and libraries all being in directories searched by
> default by both the link editor and the runtime linker, the problems
> are fairly limited.  IIRC Debian requires that you link directly against
> all libraries that you require directly.
> The problems start as soon as you link (directly or indirectly) against
> libraries in directories not searched by default.  IOW: typically
> anything not provided by a properly packaged Debian package, installed
> by the user or the system maintainer.

Surely at least on Linux the -rpath linker option would be a much better
way to solve this?

Linux does seem to have good dynamic linker support and its a shame
libtool effectively drags it down to a lower common denominator of other
platforms with worse support.



Richard Purdie
Intel Open Source Technology Centre

reply via email to

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