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

Axel Thimm Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Thu Oct 5 09:51:09 UTC 2006

On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 02:15:58AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Oct  2, 2006, Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net> wrote:
> > So, if libtool were to simply ignore dependency_libs when building
> > against shared libs wouldn't that solve all issues?
> Nope, it would only solve the common case.
> It is perfectly possible for a dynamic library to depend on a
> static-only library.  And it's even possible to create other dynamic
> libraries out of that, if the static-only library is PIC or the
> platform can handle non-PIC in dynamic libraries.

So? That's not a problem with the mentioned patch.

> > If so the patch looks almost trivial and is far better than to setup
> > workflows on whether removing some *.la files and still have some
> > false positives/negatives.
> Breaking the libtool sources that get installed for packagers all over
> the world to use, for deployment on various operating systems, is not
> really an option I'd recommend.

Nobody suggested breaking anything.
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/20061005/e1253cc2/attachment.sig>

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list