On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 4:17 PM, Colin Walters <walters@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 7:15 PM, Dan Nicholson <dbn.lists@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 2:21 PM, Colin Walters <walters@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> The ideal of course would be to convince libtool upstream that trying >>> to change the entire world to use libtool makes a lot less sense than >>> having those few modules that interact with shared libraries have >>> platform-specific code. >> >> The libtool developers understand that the .la files aren't needed in >> normal operation. The reason that they insist on keeping them is so >> that `make uninstall' works since the .la files are the only place >> that store information about the actual libraries (.so + links vs. .a, >> etc.). > > Right - we have a "make uninstall", it's called "rpm -e". OK, now convince the libtool developers to break everyone's `make distcheck'. Might be tough. But I certainly would support a way to opt out of that situation at build time. Something like: export LIBTOOLFLAGS="--no-installed-la-files" -- Dan -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
