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

Rex Dieter rdieter at math.unl.edu
Fri Oct 6 04:06:26 UTC 2006

Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Oct  5, 2006, Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net> wrote:

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

> Ignoring dependency_libs would break the following case:
> - libA.la, static only...

Right, but:
1.  That's why I mentioned on the libtool ml that the patch should only
apply in non-static lib cases (though I haven't the foggiest the
complications involved in implementing that).
2.  Good thing we don't package static libs (or at least *strongly*

-- Rex

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list