Bryan Kadzban wrote: >> While I'm at it, should we remove *.la files in the libraries: >> >> find /usr/lib -name \*.la -delete > > As a person who sometimes writes code against libraries in LFS, I'd > rather not. But this might fall into the same category as removing > static libs, or stripping debug symbols.
Yes, it does. I don't see where .la files are needed for linking in a Linux system. AFAIK, the system will find the right .so file and link against that just fine. >> We can add that to Section 6.64 - Stripping Again. What I've found is >> that I get a lot of warning messages and sometimes failures when >> packages try to use the .la files, but just removing them seems to fix >> things up without causing other problems. > > Hmm, I haven't noticed that. Is this from files that got moved, or from > something else? (.la files encode their original installation directory > in the file itself, in libdir, so if they get moved after installation, > the files need to be edited, otherwise libtool will complain. I don't > *think* that will cause failures to compile, though...) I kept getting messages when building various packages about files that have moved from libtool during linking. It's irritating. I then deleted the offending .la files and got errors from others about not finding those .la files I deleted. I cured it by just deleting all .la files. Example: libtool: link: warning: `/usr/lib64/libxml2.la' seems to be moved This is caused by the symlink /usr/lib64 -> /usr/lib -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
