On Sat, 2008-11-01 at 00:33 +0100, Denis Leroy wrote: > Colin Walters 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". > > Was a libtool fork ever attempted ? Why fork it when you can just throw it away and forget it ever existed? I just write proper Makefiles, and if I ever _want_ to spend a couple of minutes watch some bizarre script trying to work out what type of FORTRAN compiler I have on my system, I can write myself a little bash script for that too. -- David Woodhouse Open Source Technology Centre David.Woodhouse@xxxxxxxxx Intel Corporation -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
