Re: [PATCH] Don't install .la files when --no-la-files is used

[Kurt Roeckx]

On Sun, Nov 09, 2008 at 07:31:47AM -0800, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 3:38 PM, Bob Friesenhahn
> <address@hidden> wrote:
> > I feel like today I just watched the movie "Groundhog Day" another 20 times.
> >  This topic re-emerges just as often as the one about whether list replies
> > should default to the original sender, or to the list.
> >
> > It seems that there is an issue for Linux distribution maintainers. What
> > needs to be done about it so that this topic does not come up so often?
> 
> I haven't followed the topic for that long, but it think this is that
> patch Debian uses which many other distros have picked up:
> 
> http://patches.ubuntu.com/libt/libtool/extracted/link_all_deplibs.patch
> http://svn.mandriva.com/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/packages/cooker/libtool/current/SOURCES/libtool-1.5.24-link_all_deplibs.patch?view=markup
> 
> So, what would it take to get something like that upstream?

There are a few problems with this patch.  See:
http://bugs.debian.org/291641
http://bugs.debian.org/320698
http://bugs.debian.org/297726


It's also not complete:
http://bugs.debian.org/419228

> Obviously,
> it would first have to be ported to 2.2. Then, it seems to me that it
> should probably use a feature test rather than a platform glob. I
> think Ralf called this transitive dependency closures.

The patch has been ported to 2.2 and the first link you showed
is the one for 2.2.


Kurt