On Mon, Jul 03, 2006 at 11:14:09PM +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * Tim Mooney wrote on Mon, Jul 03, 2006 at 10:50:23PM CEST:
...
> Probably, yes.
>
> > I seem to recall discussion on this list in the past about why
> > distributions were doing that, but I don't recall what any of the reasons
> > were.
>
> To avoid linking against indirect dependencies. Or to avoid link
> failure when other dependencies' .la files have been removed or moved.
>
> > Has any work (perhaps as part of libtool 2.0) gone into addressing
> > the reason(s) why they were doing that?
>
> Hmm. There has been quite some discussion on this and the -patches
> list. Please use the mail archives to dig it up. I've suggested an
> extensive set of testsuite tests (in some Debian bug report) which I
> would see as a prerequisite to rewriting the deplib search algorithm
> in ltmain. One point is that, for consistency, the algorithm would
> need to recursively include all indirect dependencies.
>
> If anyone really cares, I can dig up a list of URLs to some important
> discussion pieces. I also have some half-finished notes, unpublished.
...
Maybe you could slap your half-finished in something like
libtool/mail/deplibs{,.html} ?
Cheers,
Patrick
_______________________________________________
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
