[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: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 16:38:04 -0400
User-agent: KMail/1.12.0 (Linux/; KDE/4.3.0; x86_64; ; )

On Monday 31 August 2009 15:56:06 Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 08:55:21PM +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > * Kurt Roeckx wrote on Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 10:31:39PM CEST:
> > > I've mailed about this issue before.  What I think needs to
> > > happen, and have proposed before, is:
> > > - The .la file should only contain the libraries the current
> > >   library links to
> >
> > That will make it impossible to support static linking against libraries
> > which do not themselves provide .la files.  We cannot do this upstream.
> I don't see how it's different than what we have now.
> If I understand what you're trying to say is:
> - The lib we're making now, liba, links to libb
> - libb itself does not have a .la file
> - to link to libb staticly, you also need to link to other
>   libraries.
> Either you provided libb's depedencies when linking liba or
> not, what is going to be in is going to be the same.
> And if you really want static linking to work properly,
> you need some way to find out what libraries libb requires,
> be that with a or libb.pc file.

and Ralf is pointing out that by trimming dependency_libs, you're breaking when linking libb statically via libtool.  if there is no, 
then the issue is irrelevant because we arent talking about libtool scripts. -

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

reply via email to

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