Il giorno mar, 05/10/2010 alle 13.04 +0200, Angelo Arrifano ha scritto: > There are a lot of packages that need this information to correctly link > against libtool managed libraries, for example, there are packages that > linked against GL but didn't set -lGL -lGLU because it was relying on > libtool to get that information (guess from where?).
Definitely not from /usr/lib/libGL.la given that libGL is part of mesa and mesa did not use libtool for linking until very recently, so it's either something relying on just the most recent versions of mesa, or it's screwed. For your information, mesa has supported pkg-config for a longer time than it used libtool to build. Other interesting note: libGL on non-Xorg systems has no reason to use libtool at all, even today. Where does the linker find this information? For dynamic linking, from the ELF files. The problem sticks for static linking, but I have my sincere doubts that anyone in his sane mind is going to statically link libGL for the simple reason that it can depend on the driver used (mesa, nvidia, ATI, ...) and might even use dynamic linking against other backends. > Mind you that the community is wider than one can imagine. I happen to > work in the academia and I know a lot of nasty stuff people do to save > time (at least is what they think) for deadlines. As a user, I would > hate to have my research program/script broken just because some dev > decided to make the distribution I use his personal sandbox. No, you'd just have to do things sanely. I sincerely don't see Gentoo needing to not move forward (or add much more complexity in the already complex mix) just because some student decided that it's cooler to hack something up rather than learning how the thing is done to begin with. We already don't support many other things that do break hacky scripts that are written in academic (and not just) circles; does that mean we have to revert those and pad around everything for our users, lest some thing that never should have worked actually stop working? > Besides, doesn't this kind of changes belong in upstream and then > eventually come to the distros? Why don't you make a patch and send > upstream if these libtool files are so useless? I see you haven't read my post on the matter I linked at the root of the thread. Please do so and don't ask me questions I answered already there. http://blog.flameeyes.eu/2010/10/04/libtool-archives-and-their-pointless-points -- Diego Elio Pettenò — “Flameeyes” http://blog.flameeyes.eu/ If you found a .asc file in this mail and know not what it is, it's a GnuPG digital signature: http://www.gnupg.org/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
