On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 04:16:57PM +1000, Robert Collins wrote: > If they are both simultaneously correct then the .la should represent > this, and be doing the right thing.
> If its not, it may be a libtool platform bug, or possibly [but unlikely] > we've found a bug in libtools .la format. > 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. There is, but libtool itself has a blemish that ensures it will always traverse .la file dependencies, and fail if they're not found, even when linking dynamically. Scott James Remnant has suggested that one solution would be for Debian to replace libtool with a very small shell script for our own package-building purposes. But if we don't do that, then we shouldn't have .la files around; they just encourage libtool to do stupid things at build time. -- 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
