Hi,
I'm finally back into the swing of things and am back on this list.
Sorry for the delay.
On 1 Jul, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
> I'm not qualified to recommend anything unfortunately. From my limited
> understanding, including the .la files in the -dev package makes sense if
> only for depend
On Mon, Jun 07, 1999 at 04:00:45PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
> http://www.debian.org/Bugs/db/37/37338.html
>
> I am currently working on editing in the policy amendments,
> and I find this amendment quite confusing. Could the rpincipals
> involved in this clarify exact
Hi Manoj,
> http://www.debian.org/Bugs/db/37/37338.html
>
> I am currently working on editing in the policy amendments,
> and I find this amendment quite confusing. Could the rpincipals
> involved in this clarify exactly where the .la files are supposed to
> go? Are they
Hi,
http://www.debian.org/Bugs/db/37/37338.html
I am currently working on editing in the policy amendments,
and I find this amendment quite confusing. Could the rpincipals
involved in this clarify exactly where the .la files are supposed to
go? Are they meant for the -dev packag
> "Ossama" == Ossama Othman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ossama> Hi, Where do we stand on my proposal to include `.la'
Ossama> files in `-dev' packages?
I thought it sounded like a good idea, but refrained from seconding
since I don't feel qualified... I was hoping folks with more
Hi,
On 6 May, Joey Hess wrote:
> Chris Waters wrote:
> > I would like to know more about the pros and cons of the proposal
> > before participating in any sort of "consensus". My impression has
> > been that libtool is mostly not needed on Linux-based systems. So,
> > I'm a little dubious
Chris Waters wrote:
> I would like to know more about the pros and cons of the proposal
> before participating in any sort of "consensus". My impression has
> been that libtool is mostly not needed on Linux-based systems. So,
> I'm a little dubious about the idea of requiring it in -dev packages.
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ossama Othman wrote:
> > Where do we stand on my proposal to include `.la' files in `-dev'
> > packages?
[...]
> Currently your proposal has only one seconder, it needs another. At that
> point it can become an amentment to policy if the group is in consensu
Oops, forgot to amswer this:
On 06-May-99 Joey Hess wrote:
> As far as I can see linux's shared library format allows specification of
> inter-library dependancies. So I hope an example is forthcoming..
Linux elf libraries do not (reliably) allow interlibrary dependencies between
shared and stati
Ok, I think I've heard enough concrete evidence of how .la files can be
beneficial. I'm no longer objecting to making this policy, although I don't
strongly feel we should.
--
see shy jo
Hello again.
Some more food for thought:
On 06-May-99 Joey Hess wrote:
> Ossama Othman wrote:
>> Certainly libtool is fully capable of linking against shared libraries which
>> don't have .la files, but being a mere shell script it can add considerably
>> to the build time of a libtool using pack
Ossama Othman wrote:
> Certainly libtool is fully capable of linking against shared libraries which
> don't have .la files, but being a mere shell script it can add considerably
> to the build time of a libtool using package if that shellscript has to derive
> all this infomation from first princip
Ossama Othman wrote:
> Where do we stand on my proposal to include `.la' files in `-dev'
> packages?
>
> This is my first proposal on debian-policy. Is there a "procedure" I
> need to follow to make the proposal official (I noticed some people
> filing wishlist bug-reports) or is just posting a p
Hi,
Where do we stand on my proposal to include `.la' files in `-dev'
packages?
This is my first proposal on debian-policy. Is there a "procedure" I
need to follow to make the proposal official (I noticed some people
filing wishlist bug-reports) or is just posting a proposal to this
mailing list
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
>> "Joel" == Joel Klecker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>Joel> I suggest not using the term versioning to refer to sonames,
>Joel> it is too easy to confuse it with symbol versioning.
>
> Where may we read about symbol versioning and things of t
> "Joel" == Joel Klecker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Joel> I suggest not using the term versioning to refer to sonames,
Joel> it is too easy to confuse it with symbol versioning.
Where may we read about symbol versioning and things of that nature,
please?
Hi,
On 5 May, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> [43 pollux:~] egrep '(library_names|revision|current|age)=' \
> /usr/lib/libEterm.la /usr/lib/libgltt.la
> /usr/lib/libEterm.la:library_names='libEterm.so.0.8.7 libEterm.so.0
> libEterm.so'
> /usr/lib/libEterm.la:current=8
> /usr/lib/libEter
On Tue, May 04, 1999 at 10:14:40PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> > I suggest not using the term versioning to refer to sonames, it is
> > too easy to confuse it with symbol versioning.
>
> I used the term versioning because .la files contain 3 different version
> numbers.
yes, but those three numbe
On Tue, May 04, 1999 at 05:48:06PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
>
> Can you get more details? I'm concerned that though .la files may be useful
> on some architectures libtool supports, they may be quite useless in debian.
> Reading some .la files, they seem to contain only things like libraries the
>
Hi Ben and Joey,
I got answers to your questions from one of the libtool team members,
Gary V. Vaughan. I've added him to the Cc list, with his permission.
The answers to concerns stated below are from Gary.
--
On 4 May, Ben Collins wrote:
> On Tue,
Joel Klecker wrote:
> I'm not sure if you mean DT_SONAME or DT_NEEDED.
>
> For the former:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:[~]% objdump -p /lib/libc-2.1.1.so | awk '/SONAME/ {print
> $2}'
> libc.so.6
Actually what I really need for debhelper is the library name and major
version number, as is seen in a shli
At 17:48 -0700 1999-05-04, Joey Hess wrote:
Reading some .la files, they seem to contain only things like libraries the
library depends on and versioning info. Is there really any info in
those files that cannot be obtained in other ways on linux?
Nope, that is all in the shared object itself,
Hi Joey,
On 4 May, Joey Hess wrote:
> Can you get more details? I'm concerned that though .la files may be useful
> on some architectures libtool supports, they may be quite useless in debian.
> Reading some .la files, they seem to contain only things like libraries the
> library depends on a
Ossama Othman wrote:
> The latest GNU libtools (>= 1.3a) can take advantage of installed
> libtool archive files (`*.la'). According to Thomas Tanner (one of the
> GNU libtool mainters):
>
>Version >= 1.3a of libtool will search for those
>files, which contain a lot of useful information
Hi Ben,
On 4 May, Ben Collins wrote:
> On Tue, May 04, 1999 at 12:56:06PM -0500, Ossama Othman wrote:
> > Opinions? Would this be something we could add to our packing
> > policies?
>
> Just a simple question, how many packages (percentage guess) does this
> stand to _help_? Even if most
On Tue, May 04, 1999 at 12:56:06PM -0500, Ossama Othman wrote:
> My proposal is to make
> packages that use libtool to create shared libraries install the
> generated `.la' files in corresponding `-dev' packages.
Seconded!
Marcus
--
`Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org f
On Tue, May 04, 1999 at 12:56:06PM -0500, Ossama Othman wrote:
> Opinions? Would this be something we could add to our packing
> policies?
Just a simple question, how many packages (percentage guess) does this
stand to _help_? Even if most libraries are compiled with libtool, most
programs which
Hi,
I maintain the GNU libtool Debian packages.
The latest GNU libtools (>= 1.3a) can take advantage of installed
libtool archive files (`*.la'). According to Thomas Tanner (one of the
GNU libtool mainters):
Version >= 1.3a of libtool will search for those
files, which contain a lot of us
28 matches
Mail list logo
