| 1 |
On Thursday 19 June 2008 13:08:09 Rémi Cardona wrote: |
| 2 |
> David Leverton a écrit : |
| 3 |
> > Not for library consumers that use libtool but not pkgconfig. |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> I'd be in favor of having a _default_ configuration for Gentoo where |
| 6 |
> static binaries are never built except for some key packages (mainly for |
| 7 |
> rescue situations). |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> That way, in a dynamic-lib only system, libtool will expand -l<name> to |
| 10 |
> <name>.so. Simple and easy. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> As Diego and others have been on a crusade to make sure that system libs |
| 13 |
> are used instead of bundled libs, static libs should also be outcast. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
I wouldn't be opposed to that, as long as there's a way to override it for |
| 16 |
people who need to. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> > Why only plugins? What's to stop an application from loading a "normal" |
| 19 |
> > library using libtool's dlopen wrapper (perhaps so it can fail gracefully |
| 20 |
> > if the library is missing, for example)? |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> Nothing per se, but I have yet to see any FOSS application dlopen() gtk+ |
| 23 |
> or libpng. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> *None* of the binary distros out there ship .la files by default. Those |
| 26 |
> come with -devel packages. Proof that they are (almost) never needed. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Well... the point is that removing them is a (potential) incompatibility with |
| 29 |
the package as shipped by upstream. As with the previous point, I suppose I |
| 30 |
could tolerate doing it by default, as long as users can choose to install |
| 31 |
them if they need. |
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives