Hi, On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 09:00:36PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 01:51:58PM +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > > dependency_libs contains the linker switches/arguments that this > > library was built with including the dependent libs, both directly > > references as well as indirectly references through intermediate libs. > > > > For static linking one needs the whole dependency_libs information, > > but for building against shared libs you only need a subset. This > > leads to having more build dependencies than neccessary in a > > shared-libs only build. As a consequence some distributions decided to > > remove all *.la files to keep build dependencies down. This is of > > course not really a solution. > > There is nothing you can do to reduce the number of build dependencies. > If you can reduce it, there is a bug somewhere.
Let me clarify: I didn't mean the build dependencies for this library, but for projects building on this library. > However, you can reduce the number of depends of the package itself > when linking shared. That's what I meant. > But recursivly, you'll still have the same dependencies. Yes, but this only then applies for the runtime, e.g. when installing the project depending on a lib, then all recursively dependent libs are needed, but not for the build of the project itself. > > Can this be somehow dealt with within libtool? It would need to > > fork the semantics of dependency_libs into static vs shared libs > > or something similar. I guess the difficult part is identifying > > what parts of dependency_libs are needed for a shared build > > against this library. > > Debian has a patch that sets link_all_deplibs to no. This basicly > doesn't use dependency_libs for shared linking. Hm, I had a quick look at that patch, looks very promising! > Note that this causes various problems for which there are open bugs > in the Debian bug tracking system. > > Because of this, Debian is more and more moving from .la files to > using pkg-config's .pc files, which contains the info we need, and > also has cflags (-Is) in it. > > If you need more info about this, please let me know. Yes, please, especially what drawback this patch has, and why it isn't accepted upstream. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
pgpVPY1CfD7co.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
