LM wrote: > I also found out that Debian and some other distributions eliminate the .la > files before installing and I've been making a habit of doing that. I'm > trying to avoid hard-coded locations of files whenever possible and the .la > files have a lot of them. Am trying to keep the hard-coding down to the > .pc (pkg-config) files which my package manager is set to update to the > appropriate install directory upon installation of the package.
The purpose of autotools is primarily to take into account different architectures. For example cygwin must use .dll for .so and add .exe to executables. It also has to work around not having symbolic links. For linux, the .la files are just not needed. They will be used if present, but the only problem I've ever had was when some .la files are present and dependent files are deleted. The solution has always been rm /usr/lib/*.la > My personal preference is a simple makefile. Guess my views have been > affected by DOS/FreeDOS developers. I tend to agree, but for some packages, it's important to have cross-platform capabilities. > Ken Moffat wrote: >> LFS itself took about 3 hours. > > That is very impressive. Was experimenting with a build of just gcc over > the weekend and that took 4 hours by itself. Didn't try the -j option. > Some of the systems I've tried it on just locked up with it. Yes, it does indicate a fast system, but I don't think Ken runs tests. My system with all tests takes 4.9 hours (-j1). gcc in chapter 6 takes 116 minutes, but 100 minutes or so of that are the tests. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
