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

[Axel Thimm]

On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 02:45:31PM +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-10-14 at 13:29 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 02:20:19PM +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote:
> >
> > > ...and in many cases, end up unnecessarily bloating linkage of
> > > binaries/libs in main packages too, making things like soname changes
> > > even more painful than they already are...
> > 
> > I think the thread made clear that this is not the case.
> 
> If it did, I missed it.  Got any pointers to posts that support the
> above conclusion to share?

How about this thread? No, honestly check the discussion especially
Alexandre's posts who goes into the details of both libtool and
non-libtool library internals.
-- 
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/20061014/969651a9/attachment.sig>