On Monday 2008-11-03 22:59, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: >* Ralf Wildenhues wrote on Mon, Nov 03, 2008 at 09:14:31AM CET: >> * Jan Engelhardt wrote on Mon, Nov 03, 2008 at 07:39:56AM CET: >> > Is not that what libtool is supposed to cover up? Maybe not for every >> > make invocation à la `make LD=zzzld`, but perhaps determining the >> > type of ld at configure-time. >> >> But it *DOES* cover up. Just use -R. Reread my post, please, the last >> paragraph speaks about a special case that you may or may not need to >> use. > >Maybe I answered your question only half way here: > >For dependencies on libraries that are not libtool libraries (i.e., no >.la file exists), libtool cannot automatically add a run path. Why not? >Well, libtool cannot know whether the library to be linked against is >installed or uninstalled. If it is installed, it cannot know whether >that is the final location of the library, or a DESTDIR path. So >blindly adding the directory of that library would break some uses. > >That's one reason why you are encouraged to _not_ remove installed .la >files.
Thank you for providing this explanation. Keeping the .la does the right thing, and I am happy :) So I guess the reasons why distros remove the .la files is because they are within the default search paths. _______________________________________________ http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
