Robert Collins <robe...@robertcollins.net> writes:
> On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 08:06 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>> Le mercredi 13 mai 2009 à 11:23 +1000, Brian May a écrit :
>> > Is this still considered to be a libtool issue?
>>
>> Yes, but instead of dropping the .la entirely, Iâd recommend to simply
>> purge it from the dependency libs.
>> See /usr/share/gnome-pkg-tools/1/rules/clean-la.mk for a way to do it.
If you have no reverse dependency that uses *.la files then please
drop yours so things you depend on can drop theirs in turn. But only
then.
>> If the pkg-config files or the headers still reference libdb, youâll
>> need it as a dependency anyway, but otherwise, it can be safely removed
>> after you do that.
>
> Are the following two items correct:
> - to link statically you need libdb ?
> - to link dynamically you don't ?
>
> If they are both simultaneously correct then the .la should represent
> this, and be doing the right thing.
Afaik the la can not represent that.
> If its not, it may be a libtool platform bug, or possibly [but unlikely]
> we've found a bug in libtools .la format.
Welcome to the new millenium. Now you know why people hate *.la files.
> I'd need to check the source, which I don't have time to do just-now,
> but I thought there was provision for static and shared linking having
> different needs.
>
> -Rob
MfG
Goswin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
