On Oct 12, 2006, Rex Dieter <rdieter@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> I'm not arguing against the "no static lib" policy, and I'm not >> arguing against removing .la files. I'm only arguing against patching >> libtool in ways that have negative consequences for other OSes, >> because this would affect Fedora users that develop on Fedora and >> expect the libtool in it to deliver them portability to other OSes. > Ah, and you must've missed that I qualified the use of ignoring > dependancy_libs only on platforms that *can* (ie, linux) You can only given a very specific set of assumptions, such as no static libs, no non-default lib dirs. There's nothing GNU/Linux-specific about that. The same probably applies to any recent ELF platforms. > and not using it in the case of static linking. (: Point still holds that, if a patch to improve libtool in this regard is available, it shouldn't be in our copy of libtool only, it should be upstream, because it's useful for everybody, and then we don't get the heat if our patch accidentally breaks libtool's portability features for other OSes. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Secretary for FSF Latin America http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org} -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
