Peter Samuelson wrote: > [Erik de Castro Lopo] > > I'm think I'm coming in rather late on this, but why were these .la > > files removed? I've read through bug#539687 and its still not clear. > > I can't speak for Ron,
Thanks Peter, you'll do. > but in general, the reason to remove .la files > is that pkg-config (and the .pc files in /usr/lib/pkgconfig) offers the > same functionality, and more, with considerably less brokenness. I'm a big fan of pkg-config. Its a good solution to the problem. > We'd > like to encourage upstreams to ship .pc files and use pkg-config in > their configure.ac scripts as the primary means of detecting the > presence of other libraries and how to use them. And libsndfile has been using pkg-config for detecting all the libraries it uses for at least three years. The problem is that using the default pkg-config/autoconf/automake/libtool behaviour to detect libxyz that ships libxyz.la file will create a (probably unnecessary) dependency on that libxyz.la file. I know this is 20/20 hindsight, but this could have been handled much better by raising bugs against and fixing all the client libraries *before* removing the libogg.la. It would probably also be a good idea to discourage the shipping .la files in the debian policy manual and adding it as a lintian warning. Cheers, Erik -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Erik de Castro Lopo http://www.mega-nerd.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
