On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 12:10 AM, Andreas Barth <[email protected]> wrote:
> we had a couple of ideas today how we could make libtool behaving > better than in http://bugs.debian.org/539687 ... > 5. try to push some functionality upstream to libtool that allows to > ignore the content of dependency_libs during compilation of dynamic > libs. Probably a bit hard to do - best would be some environment > variable that would default to "ignore that". (Unless that goes > upstream, there is not much that we could do, as libtool is statically > incorporated in source.) Fixing this upstream is by far the best way to go. That way it benefits Fedora, Gentoo[1] and so on as well. IIRC pkgconfig had a similar issue and that was resolved by the introduction of Requires.private and Libs.private. How about something like dependency_libs_private or dependency_libs_shared or similar? I imagine dependency_libs_shared might allow a transition to occur slowly without breakage if done the right way. I'm thinking for each .la file, libtool would check for dependency_libs_shared and use it if available or use dependency_libs if dependency_libs_shared is not available. The transition of upstreams to this will be a lot longer, but once the upstream support is there, a lintian warning could alert maintainers to outdated .la files and they could run libtool from debian/rules and contact upstreams to push the transition. 1. http://blog.flameeyes.eu/tag/libtool -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
