Re: ORBit-2.la not found
- From: Havoc Pennington <hp redhat com>
- To: Thomas Vander Stichele <thomas apestaart org>
- Cc: desktop-devel-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: ORBit-2.la not found
- Date: 22 Jun 2002 10:58:43 -0400
Thomas Vander Stichele <thomas apestaart org> writes:
> It looks to me that two ways are possible :
> a) if every package installs it's .la file, everything's fine
> b) if none of them installs them, everything's fine
Exactly.
>
> At the moment it seems like Ximian and Red Hat have started to remove .la
> files from their packages, but aren't quite done yet, causing lots of
> libtool link breakage while compiling.
>
> Also, I wanted to ask for some statement from people in the know from both
> Red Hat and Ximian : is the plan to remove ALL .la files from -devel
> packages everywhere, or not ?
Yes. I consider it a bug when a Red Hat gnome package contains a .la
file, and I take it out.
On Linux, the .la files do nothing useful. Everything works fine
without them (everything _has_ to work fine without them, or libtool
couldn't link to libraries that weren't compiled with libtool). So
all they are is an extra way for things to break.
I believe the theory is that they could do pkg-config type of work for
you, but libtool just is not a reasonable pkg-config replacement
(doesn't address configure.in aspects, or cflags aspects, etc.), so we
don't care about that feature.
Ultimately what someone should do is write a sane system that is a
combination of libtool and pkg-config, but, well. Someday.
As the pkg-config author I don't understand all the linker stuff, and
the libtool guys don't understand all the pkg-config goals, and
neither of us has extra time. ;-)
Havoc
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]