Re: Reducing dependency_libs to what was on the command line.

2005-12-14 Thread Ralf Wildenhues
Hi Kurt, Sorry for the delay, and for the quick writeup, too. * Kurt Roeckx wrote on Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 07:40:53PM CET: > On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 10:41:47AM +0100, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > > > Not if you have to deal with installations lacking .la files. > > > > Really: The only sane way we

Re: Reducing dependency_libs to what was on the command line.

2005-12-07 Thread Kurt Roeckx
On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 10:41:47AM +0100, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > Not if you have to deal with installations lacking .la files. > > Really: The only sane way we can get this done without breaking > backward compatibility and retain user-expected behavior is if we Yes, one problem is that user

Re: Reducing dependency_libs to what was on the command line.

2005-12-07 Thread Ralf Wildenhues
Hi Kurt, * Kurt Roeckx wrote on Tue, Dec 06, 2005 at 06:51:38PM CET: > On Tue, Dec 06, 2005 at 08:25:15AM +0100, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > > > Well. Given above thoughts, I would think that your change makes sense > > in the link_all_deplibs=no setting, given that the package author knows > > a

Re: Reducing dependency_libs to what was on the command line.

2005-12-06 Thread Jacob Meuser
On Tue, Dec 06, 2005 at 06:46:16PM +0100, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > * Jacob Meuser wrote on Tue, Dec 06, 2005 at 09:43:05AM CET: > > On Tue, Dec 06, 2005 at 08:25:15AM +0100, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > > > > - or, and that is more important, where a lot of the installed > > > libraries simply wer

Re: Reducing dependency_libs to what was on the command line.

2005-12-06 Thread Kurt Roeckx
On Tue, Dec 06, 2005 at 08:25:15AM +0100, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > Well. Given above thoughts, I would think that your change makes sense > in the link_all_deplibs=no setting, given that the package author knows > about this. > > Erm. Except: what about static linking in that case? > I think

Re: Reducing dependency_libs to what was on the command line.

2005-12-06 Thread Ralf Wildenhues
* Jacob Meuser wrote on Tue, Dec 06, 2005 at 09:43:05AM CET: > On Tue, Dec 06, 2005 at 08:25:15AM +0100, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > > - or, and that is more important, where a lot of the installed > > libraries simply were never created with libtool, e.g., because > > they stem from a propriet

Re: Reducing dependency_libs to what was on the command line.

2005-12-06 Thread Jacob Meuser
On Tue, Dec 06, 2005 at 08:25:15AM +0100, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > - or, and that is more important, where a lot of the installed > libraries simply were never created with libtool, e.g., because > they stem from a proprietary OS. or from BSD ... -- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___

Re: Reducing dependency_libs to what was on the command line.

2005-12-05 Thread Ralf Wildenhues
Hi Kurt, * Kurt Roeckx wrote on Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 07:19:16PM CET: > On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 09:33:54AM +0100, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > > > When I have time, I'd like to fix your current issues with it, > > namely cross-compilation[1], and wrong-libs-for-uninstalled-programs[2]. > > I'm very

Re: Reducing dependency_libs to what was on the command line.

2005-12-05 Thread Kurt Roeckx
On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 09:33:54AM +0100, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > Hi Kurt, > > * Kurt Roeckx wrote on Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 12:52:55AM CET: > > > > As some of you might know, Debian has a patch to reduce the > > number of libraries that libtool will link too. > > Yes. And it's a support nightma

Re: Reducing dependency_libs to what was on the command line.

2005-12-05 Thread Ralf Wildenhues
Hi Kurt, * Kurt Roeckx wrote on Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 12:52:55AM CET: > > As some of you might know, Debian has a patch to reduce the > number of libraries that libtool will link too. Yes. And it's a support nightmare, not only for Debian Libtool, but for us as well, because people do not recogn