Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb: > * Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: >> On Sunday 21 March 2004 20.49, Stephen Frost wrote: >> >> > .la files shouldn't be included in anything, they're just plain broken. >> >> 940 .la files on my system. Report bugs? > [...] >> So either you don't mean that absolutely, or three's a few buggy packages >> out >> there. > > It's the glorious brokenness that is libtool. Basically, libtool needs > to be fixed to not use the stupid things on systems that don't need them > (like, oh, all of Debian). I don't know that filing bug reports would > be useful until libtool is fixed because I imagine most maintainers who > havn't actually run into the problems caused by .la files will just > whine "libtool did it".
Yes, it did :-|. Could you point me to a documentation where I could read about these problems, and under what weird circumstances it will be a bug nevertheless if I don't install the *la files? I'm asking because - hm, well - in the NM process I promised not to package a library soon, and now a month later I have write access to tetex-bin's cvs. And libkpathsea is going to switch from its own hacked libtool to the standard one, including all standard errors... TIA, Frank -- Frank Küster, Biozentrum der Univ. Basel Abt. Biophysikalische Chemie
