Il giorno lun, 04/10/2010 alle 11.19 -0400, Richard Freeman ha scritto: > > That said, supporting this use case should not interfere with more > mainstream use of the distro. I like the USE flag proposal because it > lets us have our cake and eat it too. Those who don't need .la files > don't get them except where absolutely essential, and those who need > and > are willing to live with tons of them can have it their way.
USE flags add complexity, and in real use cases there are near to no good reasons at all to keep .la files around. I don't want to sound like a douchebag, but can you (or anyone else supporting the USE flag notion) explain what .la files actually do? What I'm quite sure of is that about half the people who express their opinion regarding .la files have no idea what they are used for, they expect them to be some kind of magic problem-solving fairy dust. They are not. They are a legacy of older operating system and static linking notions; they are also not magical enough as they are only consumed back by libtool. And not all the packages out there use libtool to link the final application even if they were to use autotools. -- Diego Elio Pettenò — “Flameeyes” http://blog.flameeyes.eu/ If you found a .asc file in this mail and know not what it is, it's a GnuPG digital signature: http://www.gnupg.org/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
