On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 02:15:58AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Oct 2, 2006, Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > So, if libtool were to simply ignore dependency_libs when building > > against shared libs wouldn't that solve all issues? > > Nope, it would only solve the common case. > > It is perfectly possible for a dynamic library to depend on a > static-only library. And it's even possible to create other dynamic > libraries out of that, if the static-only library is PIC or the > platform can handle non-PIC in dynamic libraries. So? That's not a problem with the mentioned patch. > > If so the patch looks almost trivial and is far better than to setup > > workflows on whether removing some *.la files and still have some > > false positives/negatives. > > Breaking the libtool sources that get installed for packagers all over > the world to use, for deployment on various operating systems, is not > really an option I'd recommend. Nobody suggested breaking anything. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpZazii6cC7w.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
