[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
Re: removal of .la files from Debian and a possible solution to the libtool shared libs problem
Tue, 1 Sep 2009 23:04:36 -0400
KMail/1.12.0 (Linux/126.96.36.199; KDE/4.3.0; x86_64; ; )
On Tuesday 01 September 2009 12:33:09 Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 04:38:04PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > 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 liba.la 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 libb.la or libb.pc file.
> > and Ralf is pointing out that by trimming dependency_libs, you're
> > breaking libb.la when linking libb statically via libtool. if there is
> > no libb.la, then the issue is irrelevant because we arent talking about
> > libtool scripts.
> You mean that if liba.la was created when there was a libb.la that
> did contain the needed info? In that case trying to use liba.la
> now already fails, because it's looking for libb.la.
if you delete .la files that were recorded already in other .la files and dont
clean up the mess, then that's a fault in your process
> In case liba.la never knew about a libb.la, or libb.a never existed,
> I can't see any difference.
if libb.la didnt exist, then this discussion is completely irrelevant because
you're no longer talking about libtool
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.