On 03-10-2010 15:29, Luca Barbato wrote: > On 10/03/2010 01:53 PM, David Leverton wrote: >> While I do agree that the underlying problem we're trying to solve is >> worth solving, I do have a couple of small concerns about how it's >> being done. The first is that it seems people are judging whether a >> particular .la file is "needed" by checking whether anything currently >> in the tree needs it, but this doesn't take into account anything that >> /isn't/ in the tree yet. > > I think the simpler solution is that if it needs .la, before reaching > the tree it has to be fixed...
<joke> Was libtool deprecated or something? Judging by your reply, it really made me think so. </joke> The farther we walk from upstream, the greater is the quantity of work we have to do to maintain their packages. > > lu >
