On Sat, 09 Apr 2011 11:25:34 +0200 Thomas Girard <thomas.g.gir...@free.fr> wrote:
> Hello, > > regarding bug #621170 filed against gnu-smalltak for *.la removal, here > is the current situation: > > gnu-smalltalk packages contains /usr/lib/gnu-smalltalk/libc.la > > I'm attaching it here for the reference. Thanks. > Please note that the .la file is *not* in a -dev package. It's not > intended to be used by any other package, but by the GNU Smalltalk VM > to be able to dynamically load the libc (using libtdl) whatever the libc > is (e.g. libc.so.6 or libc.so.0.1), and without requiring > libc6-dev package to be installed. > > For more details on the way load works see: > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=621170#20 > > Hence I believe this bug can be closed without any action. Do you agree > with this analysis? Useful to document the rationale but as dependency_libs is currently empty and you have a reason to use the .la, it should be fine to close 621170. Just hold for a bit, in case there are any further comments from others on -devel. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
pgpwrGpME2djz.pgp
Description: PGP signature
