On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 16:23:24 -0500 Michael Jennings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> babbled:
(B
(B> On Friday, 11 March 2005, at 16:15:55 (-0500),
(B> Mike Frysinger wrote:
(B>
(B> > i think we're talking about the .la files for the loaders, not the
(B> > main 'libImlib2.*' files ... in the normal course of things, if you
(B> > link against libImlib2.so and have it load say jpeg.so, jpeg.la and
(B> > jpeg.a are not needed ... the .la file is only used by libtool at
(B> > build time which is why you always want libImlib2.la ...
(B> >
(B> > i dont think it's possible at all to link against the loaders
(B> > directly is it ? so shouldnt the loader's .a and .la files be
(B> > prunned from the normal `make install` target ?
(B>
(B> Imlib2 uses libltdl to load the loaders. libltdl is part of libtool,
(B> and libtool uses the .la files for dependency info and such. It would
(B> stand to reason, then, that the .la files would be used for loading
(B> the loaders.
(B
(Bno it doesnt :) not anymore :) that changed as of 1.2.0 - THUS they are not
(Bneeded :)
(B
(B--
(B------------- Codito, ergo sum - "I code, therefore I am" --------------
(BThe Rasterman (Carsten Haitzler) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
$BMg9%B?(B [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(BTokyo, Japan ($BEl5~(B $BF|K\(B)
(B
(B
(B-------------------------------------------------------
(BSF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
(BRead honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users.
(BDiscover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now.
(Bhttp://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click
(B_______________________________________________
(Benlightenment-devel mailing list
([email protected]
(Bhttps://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
