Paul Wise wrote: > On Tue, 2009-08-25 at 17:46 +0300, Anssi Hannula wrote: > >> I don't understand what the proposed dependency_libs_shared would be for. >> >> dependency_libs contains the dependencies of a library. These are needed >> when linking statically. These are also needed when linking dynamically, >> but only on certain systems (they are not needed on normal linux systems). >> >> I think the proper way to solve this is to not link to dependency_libs >> when linking dynamically on systems where it is not needed to link to >> those. I haven't seen any correctly working patches that implement this. > > I don't know enough about the issue, nor the reason why pkgconfig has > both Libs.private/Requires.private and Libs/Requires.
AFAICS Libs.private is pretty much equivalent to dependency_libs. > I would suggest > you post in the thread asking what the proper upstream solution would > look like. People who are more knowledgeable are likely to answer any > questions you have. You mean to subscribe on the debian development list? I'd think this list would be the more appropriate place for discussing a proper upstream solution. -- Anssi Hannula _______________________________________________ http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
