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

[Russ Allbery]

Ralf Wildenhues <address@hidden> writes:
> * Bob Friesenhahn wrote on Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 05:01:18AM CEST:

>> Is someone here willing to contribute a portable m4 macro which tests
>> the compiler (and/or linker) to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that
>> it adequately supports the implicit linkage required? The tests should
>> work for more than Linux and should be based on observed behavior.

> Is support in Debian full now?  Do dlopen'ed modules that have indirect
> dependencies outside of default-searched library paths get loaded
> correctly now, with DT_RPATH entries only pointing to direct deplibs
> (and recursively for their DT_RPATH entries)?

This particular scenario I've not checked personally.  I never use
non-default-searched library paths for anything.  I certainly agree that
libtool needs to support that case, though.

dlopened modules are something of a special case; it's one of the places
where Debian may not remove *.la files depending on the specific
situation.

-- 
Russ Allbery (address@hidden)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>