On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 10:33:29AM +0200, Dag-Erling Sm??rgrav wrote: > Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 10:19:46AM +0200, Dag-Erling Sm??rgrav wrote: > > > Not if you want to use pre-built packages. You made sure of that when > > > you decided (against my objections) to include .la files in packages. > > I have a suspicion you're never going to let that go, but it's not > > relevant here anyway. Binaries have been hardcoding their build > > location (e.g. /usr/local) since the dawn of time. > > Most don't.
Assertion without proof. In fact a quick survey shows that 90% of my /usr/local/bin references /usr/local. > > The best you can > > do is to binary edit everything to a string of the same length, and > > that works for .la files too. > > The existence of .la files is a bug. > > We already have a mechanism for recording dependencies between > libraries; it's built into the ELF format, and does not require > hardcoding any directories. Introducing .la files which override the > existing mechanism and *do* hardcode directories is a regression. > > I don't buy the argument that "KDE won't build without them", or > whatever it was you used to justify this. I can't help it that you weren't paying attention. Kris _______________________________________________ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
