| 1 |
On 05-10-2010 13:49, Luca Barbato wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 10/5/10 9:52 AM, Angelo Arrifano wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> By removing .la files, you are taking away that choice from the user. |
| 5 |
>> For you they might be useless, for some user (or entire software house) |
| 6 |
>> it can be its holly grail for library versioning and linking. I don't |
| 7 |
>> really feel like forcing users to change their build setups just because |
| 8 |
>> we think they are useless, do you? |
| 9 |
>> - It is decisions like this one that *might* give us bad reputation. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Bluntly put, you seem to not know how libtool exactly works and further |
| 12 |
> down in the thread how linking exactly works. Please try to learn the |
| 13 |
> fine Gentoo docs on the subject and feel free to ask more details on irc. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> lu |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
I just talked with Samuli and Luca at IRC and indeed there were some |
| 20 |
issues in my reasoning about libtool's behavior. Applications expecting |
| 21 |
overlinking to link correctly would be broken anyway due to |
| 22 |
-Wl,--as-needed . |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Since all the issues I tried to point will not be verified anyway, I |
| 25 |
don't see anymore why we can't proceed with the proposal. Moreover, due |
| 26 |
to my past in fixing .la files to let programs cross-compile correctly I |
| 27 |
actually welcome this change. So here it is my |
| 28 |
+1 |
Archives