On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 17:08 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > I'd need to check the source, which I don't have time to do > just-now, > > but I thought there was provision for static and shared linking > having > > different needs. > > There is, but libtool itself has a blemish that ensures it will always > traverse .la file dependencies, and fail if they're not found, even > when > linking dynamically.
Sounds like a bug rather than a designed in feature. libtools reason for existence is to abstract out these things. http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=419228 is likely related. as is http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=419228. and http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=492220. > Scott James Remnant has suggested that one solution would be for > Debian to > replace libtool with a very small shell script for our own > package-building > purposes. But if we don't do that, then we shouldn't have .la files > around; > they just encourage libtool to do stupid things at build time. .la files will always encourage libtool to do stupid things until we actually get the behaviour we want upstream :). And not having .la files will cause static linking to fail, unless of course we hand craft .pc files to list the hidden dependencies :- which is something that libtool knows and should be spitting out cleanly for us. None of the bugs above have been forward upstream; Ralf, do you think they are reasonable candidates to forward, or is more info needed before we do that? -Rob
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
