Re: libtool(.la) archive policy proposal

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 02:45:31PM +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-10-14 at 13:29 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 02:20:19PM +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote:
> >
> > > ...and in many cases, end up unnecessarily bloating linkage of
> > > binaries/libs in main packages too, making things like soname changes
> > > even more painful than they already are...
> > 
> > I think the thread made clear that this is not the case.
> 
> If it did, I missed it.  Got any pointers to posts that support the
> above conclusion to share?

How about this thread? No, honestly check the discussion especially
Alexandre's posts who goes into the details of both libtool and
non-libtool library internals.
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net

Attachment: pgpuVL1B4kcQa.pgp
Description: PGP signature

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging

[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Big List of Linux Books]     [Yosemite Forum]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux