Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hello Russ, > * Russ Allbery wrote on Fri, Nov 07, 2008 at 01:20:28AM CET:
>> The most frequent problem caused by *.la files is that they add a pile >> of unnecessary dependencies to shared libraries, which further >> entangles package dependencies and makes upgrades unnecessarily hard. >> (This is the long-standing problem of including all dependencies >> required for static libraries, which aren't needed for shared libraries >> on systems that handle transitive dependency closures when loading >> shared libraries.) > Which is nicely solved with --as-needed, as long as you don't need to > stick in extra, seemingly-unneeded library dependencies that only become > useful for dlopen'ed modules. Debian's experience to date is that --as-needed is buggy and breaks a lot of software, and overall is not a particularly stable solution. Removing *.la files so that the unneeded shared libraries aren't linked in the first place works considerably better at the moment. For me, it's not a religious argument. I just want to do something that works on the platforms that Debian supports for a Debian package and removes unnecessary shared library dependencies. Currently, removing *.la files does and --as-needed doesn't always. (Note that personally I keep *.la files unless there's a specific problem that comes to light that I'm trying to fix, and would recommend that others generally do the same thing. I'm not advocating Fedora's approach; I think they're occasionally useful, particularly if you care at all about static linking.) -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> _______________________________________________ http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
