[Fedora-packaging] Re: libtool(.la) archive policy proposal
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...
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
More information about the Fedora-packaging