Le lun 13/10/2003 à 22:19, Steve Langasek a écrit : > > You're right as for static linking, I thought pkg-config supported > > --static while it doesn't. Well, maybe it is better that way; I > > personally feel we should deprecate the whole static linking stuff. > > In which case, we could easily fix all libtool installations by simply > removing the .la files altogether, and we'll never have any more > problems with mislinked dynamic executables or libraries.
Indeed. > But if we're going to do that, then most of the available pkg-config > settings are *still* wrong; in the above instance, the correct answer > for dynamic linking is '-Wl,--export-dynamic -lgnomecanvas-2', and lose > the other 50 entries on that line. Of course, that means fixing many broken pkg-config files. I don't know if we can do completely without them, as there are some (e.g. XFree86) libraries which are still available only in static format. > Both of these tools are designed primarily to solve problems that do not > affect stock Debian packages. We are not part of their target userbase, > and as such, the tools are suboptimal for what we're trying to achieve. Just like the whole auto* stuff. I really feel we should get rid of all these static libraries. Who uses static linking now that even our glibc doesn't support it correctly across versions? -- .''`. Josselin Mouette /\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e=2E?=
