On Mon, Aug 19, 2002 at 10:06:20PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > On Mon, 19 Aug 2002, Ben Collins wrote: > > > > > Not only that, it's only useful for linking, so has no reason being in > > > > the primary runtime. > > > > > > ltdl needs them at runtime. > > > > Then ltdl is broken. How does one install libfoo.so.1 and libfoo.so.2 > > and only have libfoo.la, and ltdl expect to work? > > I was always under the impression that ltdl only really needed the .la > files on defective OS's, not on linux..
It also needs them if: a) the application makes an lt_dlopen() call explicitly on the .la file (this should be replaced by lt_dlopenext(), but watch out for #157230) b) the .so is not in the same directory as the .la Both of these issues can and should be corrected. c) dlpreopen and related features have been used and libtool was instructed to link statically. I can't think of any sane reason why you would do that on Debian. (Other reasons? I can't think of any) -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | Dept. of Computing, `. `' | Imperial College, `- -><- | London, UK
pgpPQizsoKUsI.pgp
Description: PGP signature
