On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 09:05:14AM +1000, Brian May wrote: > On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 08:06:34AM +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, I’d 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 I do that then I will (presumably) break static links. In which case, > how is this any better then just dropping the .la files? It's better if there are any other packages providing libtool-using libraries that depend on yours, because in that case dropping the .la files without coordination will cause build failures up the stack due to dangling references to your .la file. Otherwise, they're equivalent, and in the long term the .la files ought to be removed entirely for simplicity's sake. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
