Ralf Wildenhues <ralf.wildenh...@gmx.de> writes: > * Russ Allbery wrote on Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 07:35:53AM CEST:
>> dlopened modules are something of a special case; it's one of the >> places where Debian may not remove *.la files depending on the specific >> situation. > I have a question here, since it seems some of the involved people are > reading: is there a chance distributions would re-add .la files if the > indirect deplib linkage issue is out of the way? So far as I know, that's the only thing that's driving Debian this direction right now. I think there may be some reluctance to re-add them without an understanding of why they're useful for system libraries that come with the distribution, since there's a general perception right now that on a Linux system they're mostly useless, but I think people are open to being convinced there. The only *problem* that I'm aware of them causing at the moment is the increased shared library dependencies. -- Russ Allbery (r...@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> _______________________________________________ http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
