On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 17:46:35 +0100 James Westby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
thanks for your suggestions.
>
> * Please use ${binary:Version} and ${source:Version} in preference to
> ${Source-Version} in debian/control.
> * I would like some more "meat" in the descriptions.
> * Lose the extra comments in debian/watch.
All done.
> * Do you want to ship .a and .la? Some packages are choosing to get
> rid of them to avoid certain headaches. Obviously if
> packages/programs want to link statically to the libs then ship it.
Yes I do, because it might be the case that someone wants to link statically.
> The packaging looks ok otherwise. I haven't installed the packages and
> tested them though.
>
> Does anybody else have an opinion on .a and .la files in packages?
>
.la files are also used for dlopen() to find the correct library name as
suggested
in the libtool manual:
http://www.gnu.org/software/libtool/manual.html#Finding-the-dlname
"The most straightforward and flexible implementation is to determine the name
at
runtime, by finding the installed .la file, and searching it for the following
lines
# The name that we can dlopen.
dlname='dlname'"
Hence, it is a good idea to include them.
Regards,
Philipp Benner
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
