On Mon, Oct 02, 2006, Peter Samuelson wrote: > The problem is that .la files provide a way to pull in all the > dependent libraries for static linking, and unless you also ship .pc > files, there is no other automated way to do this. Some people > apparently care about this capability, which is why we can't just > delete _all_ .la files _now_.
I think we're already aiming at the removal of *.la files, at least some maintainers are. I'm removing them from leaf packages or as soon as the rdeps permit it, and I'm also using the "dependency_libs erasing" that was introduced in libxml2 when I can't remove the *.la files -- this renders *.la files useless but at least not harmful. On the other hand, with your proposal, we end up keeping the *.la files. I certainly understand that they ease static linking, but this also means that we need to depend on all libraries down the dependency tree (${la:Depends}) of each package to ensure that its *.la files are functional for static linking, even with the modified dependency_libs line. Since there are other ways to offer a static linking solution (adding pkg-config files) and since not all packages use libtool, I think it might be time to suggest people not to rely on *.la files for static linking. -- Loïc Minier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]