[Fedora-packaging] Re: libtool(.la) archive policy proposal

[Axel Thimm]

On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 09:01:34PM +0200, Enrico Scholz wrote:
> Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net (Axel Thimm) writes:
> 
> >> 1. somebody has to write a patch against ltmain.sh and probably
> >>    libtool.m4. Quick look into ltmain.sh indicates that this is not
> >>    a trivial job (some archs do not support indirect linking and
> >>    need a graph like above).
> >
> > We currently care about Linux, so we'd need that patch for Linux at
> > the beginning. More platforms could add themselves to the whitelist as
> > they see fit.
> 
> Defining and evaluating a 'whitelist' in ltmain.sh might be a problem...

Wow, looks like there already exists such a patch and that this patch
only changes about a dozen lines. So much for a non-trivial job. ...

     http://people.debian.org/~keybuk/keybuk-linux-deplibs.patch

I raised this up on the libtool list, which is probably better than
guessing around. Looks like Debian is using this patch for some time
now. I was told that this is still not the best way to slice bread,
and am waiting for further details.

> >> 2. somebody has to convince libtool people to apply this patch. Does not
> >>    seem to be trivial either (look at the more or less trivial multilib
> >>    patch in the Red Hat libtool-package which is still not applied).
> >
> > I wouldn't derive from one patch to another. What you perhaps consider
> > trivial and acceptable may be different for the upstream authors and
> > vice versa. I also didn't notice any discussion about the multilib
> > patch on the libtool list, so perhaps this wasn't even submitted?
> 
> Dunno; patch exists for 4 years already so I would wonder when it was never
> submitted. I thought, RH packagers were active in libtool development but I
> might be wrong here.

Did you take a look at the multilib patch? It breaks other Linux
distributions, which is why it was never submitted to
libtool-patches. Let's not blame upstream for that.

libtool has just received no love at all in Red Hat land for whatever
reason.
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/attachments/20061002/9acc101f/attachment.sig>