[Fedora-packaging] Re: libtool(.la) archive policy proposal
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...
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*
More information about the Fedora-packaging