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

[Mike Frysinger]

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. -
mike

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