Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 10:19:46AM +0200, Dag-Erling Sm??rgrav wrote: > > Not if you want to use pre-built packages. You made sure of that when > > you decided (against my objections) to include .la files in packages. > I have a suspicion you're never going to let that go, but it's not > relevant here anyway. Binaries have been hardcoding their build > location (e.g. /usr/local) since the dawn of time.
Most don't. > The best you can > do is to binary edit everything to a string of the same length, and > that works for .la files too. The existence of .la files is a bug. We already have a mechanism for recording dependencies between libraries; it's built into the ELF format, and does not require hardcoding any directories. Introducing .la files which override the existing mechanism and *do* hardcode directories is a regression. I don't buy the argument that "KDE won't build without them", or whatever it was you used to justify this. There is nothing an .la file does which can't be done more properly by adding the correct directory to your ldconfig path. DES -- Dag-Erling Smørgrav - [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
