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

Toshio Kuratomi a.badger at gmail.com
Wed Oct 4 05:05:02 UTC 2006

On Tue, 2006-10-03 at 14:54 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
> Rex Dieter wrote:
> > Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > 
> >> Explanation of patch:
> > ...
> >> acinclude.m4, ltdl.m4: Probably only ltdl.m4 needs to be changed here.
> >> Basically I replaced the erroroneous detection with the simple check of
> >> newer libtools.  This step is needed because arts includes its own,
> >> somewhat dated, copy of libltdl.  Do we want to get rid of that anyway
> >> (because we want to use system libraries whenever possible)?  Or does
> >> arts need this specific version of libltdl for some reason?
> > 
> > How's the best way to use a newer/different libltdl?  (Naively?) replace 
> > arts' libltdl/ with that from /usr/share/libtool/libltdl?
> Or just:
> $ libtoolize --ltdl --force
> ? (:

My recommendation for best is to use what's installed by the system
libtool-ltdl(-devel).  Without knowing why KDE packages are including a
local copy of ltdl in the first place, though, I don't know whether this
would be a change welcomed or refused by upstream.  (If rejected, your
other suggestions would work as well.)


P.S. I'll try out juk later this week.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/attachments/20061003/c9fc8908/attachment.sig>

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list