[C. Michael Pilato] > I'm pretty confident that when you removed the .la file from the > package, you should have also caused 'neon-config --la-file' to stop > claiming that callers could find the .la file for neon in a place it > no longer resides.
Yeah, well ... the --la-file option itself is a poor interface. The very existence of a ".la file" should be a libtool implementation detail that libraries and applications never need to know about. They should be asking "what do I add to my link line to link to neon", not "what is the filename for the internal libtool metadata for libneon". That said, since 'neon-config --la-file' is a preexisting interface, it should have been handled better. In practice the question it is answering is equivalent to "what do I add to my link line", so it should answer accordingly, meaning it should give the same output as 'neon-config --libs'. As for the question of whether the .la file should have been deleted - I still think it should be deleted. libtool functions fine without a .la file, the need for this file was artificial created by neon-config having an option to expose the .la filename, which AFAICT applications never actually needed. -- Peter Samuelson | org-tld!p12n!peter | http://p12n.org/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
