On Wednesday 27 July 2005 10:10 pm, Steve Langasek wrote: > But ok, yes, that is an option; let's spell the options out completely: > > - Don't ship .la files in the -dev package; don't depend on any other > -dev packages except those whose headers you need. This gives optimal > results for shared linking by pruning all unnecessary build-dependencies > and dependencies; but it also screws over anyone trying to do static > linking, who now has to go *recursively* hunt down the package name for > each of the library dependencies, based only on the names of the symbols > exported. (So why would anyone ship the static libs at this point...?)
What about having the -dev packages recommend the -dev packages corresponding to runtime dependencies that are built using libtool? That way the archive scripts wouldn't install them without a direct dependency, but aptitude or dselect would do so. > - Kill the .la files and .a files. Drop support for static linking. Not > something that should be done lightly and without prior project-wide > discussion. > - Leave the .la files in place; -dev packages need to depend on -dev > packages corresponding to those runtime dependencies that are also > built using libtool. This is the status quo. - Option 4 (requires volunteers): fix libtool Josh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
