On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 2:05 PM, Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello Dan, > > * Dan Nicholson wrote on Mon, Nov 03, 2008 at 03:17:53PM CET: >> On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 12:59 PM, Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > * Dan Nicholson wrote on Sat, Nov 01, 2008 at 09:48:28PM CET: >> >> Add an option, --no-la-files, which skips installing the .la files. When >> >> used with --mode=uninstall, libtool tries to use the .lai file from the >> >> build directory. > >> >> Does this seem reasonable? I've checked that this doesn't break >> >> uninstall or distcheck. >> > >> > It does break third-party packages that would like to link against your >> > library. So we should not encourage it. >> >> It doesn't break 3rd party packages when you're installing a system >> library. Would it make any difference if I reworked the patch to: > > No, it would not; sorry. > > During the last twelve months, I think I have had to tell maybe a dozen > people not to remove installed .la files to fix their problems. As > nobody is volunteering to do this work for, let's pick a random number, > say the next three years from now on, I see no reason to justify making > the removal of .la files easier for libtool users. > > Rather, the right solution is to make libtool work right in the presence > of installed .la files in those cases where it does not do the right > thing at the moment.
Oh, well. You do know that all the linux distros (that I know of) remove the .la files, right? I was sort of hoping there would be a nice way to do that. -- Dan P.S. Why do you keep setting the reply-to on your emails to me? I try to reply to your messages and end up sending them to myself. _______________________________________________ http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool