Re: don't install .la do install .so

[Nick Bowler]

On 2011-03-21 14:13 -0500, Paul Elliott wrote:
> On Monday, March 21, 2011 12:51:11 pm Nick Bowler wrote:
> > Since Fedora has complete control over how packages are configured
> > and installed, they can afford to make the necessary arrangements
> > rendering the .la files unnecessary.
[...]
> Well, the openSUSE:Shared library packaging policy
> http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Packaging_guidelines#Libraries
> says the same thing.
[...]
> Also the debian policy Manual
> http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-files.html
> says the same thing for most cases 

The same reasoning that applies to Fedora also applies to these other
distros.

> All the distros do say that if you are not installing the library in one of 
> the standard places, like, /lib /usr/lib, then you should leave the .la file 
> there.

Absolutely!  So tell me why you want to prevent the user from installing
the .la file at all, again?

> But all the distros seem to basicly agree that in the default case
> where your library is going to be linked by other programs and you are
> installing in the usual places, the la file should be removed.

Again, they can do this because they control how all the distro packages
are configured and installed.

> It seems dumb to have make install install a file only to have the distro 
> remove it, is there anyway to tell make install not to install it?

I pity the user of your package who will run 'make install' and end up
with a non-functioning library.

-- 
Nick Bowler, Elliptic Technologies (http://www.elliptictech.com/)