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

[Alexandre Oliva]

On Oct 12, 2006, Rex Dieter <rdieter at math.unl.edu> wrote:

> Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> I'm not arguing against the "no static lib" policy, and I'm not
>> arguing against removing .la files.  I'm only arguing against patching
>> libtool in ways that have negative consequences for other OSes,
>> because this would affect Fedora users that develop on Fedora and
>> expect the libtool in it to deliver them portability to other OSes.

> Ah, and you must've missed that I qualified the use of ignoring
> dependancy_libs only on platforms that *can* (ie, linux)

You can only given a very specific set of assumptions, such as no
static libs, no non-default lib dirs.  There's nothing
GNU/Linux-specific about that.  The same probably applies to any
recent ELF platforms.

> and not using it in the case of static linking.  (:

Point still holds that, if a patch to improve libtool in this regard
is available, it shouldn't be in our copy of libtool only, it should
be upstream, because it's useful for everybody, and then we don't get
the heat if our patch accidentally breaks libtool's portability
features for other OSes.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva         http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Secretary for FSF Latin America        http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer   aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist  oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}