On Mon, 2004-11-15 at 15:51 +0000, Joe Orton wrote: > On Mon, Nov 15, 2004 at 02:42:51PM +0000, Scott James Remnant wrote: > > On Mon, 2004-11-15 at 13:16 +0000, Gary V. Vaughan wrote: > > > > > Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > > >>>>Scott James Remnant wrote: > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>They're both trying to deal with platforms like Solaris that don't > > > >>>>>have > > > >>>>>a needed-following link loader. > > > > > > > The patch that is in Debian's libtool? > > > > > > It is? I'll defer to Scott... > > > > > Yes. When you're making a distribution, Libtool's behaviour of directly > > linking indirect-dependencies is insane. For a SONAME change to a > > library deep in the stack, that only affects the library immediately > > above it, you suddenly need to rebuild your entire desktop environment. > > How does libtool know that the SONAME change only affects the library > above it? What if there is a structure exposed through multiple levels > of libraries or something like that? I can think of several cases where > doing this by default in libtool would be unsafe. > Then those additional levels should directly link to the shared libraries they depend on.
This is just correct practice. Scott -- Have you ever, ever felt like this? Had strange things happen? Are you going round the twist?
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Libtool mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
