Pascal Bleser wrote:
> Marcus Rueckert wrote:
>>> On 2006-10-27 00:07:28 +0200, Pascal Bleser wrote:
>>>> ewwww... it's on purpose:
>>>> - ---8<--------------------------------------------------------
>>>> for lib in libobjc libgfortran libgfortranbegin libmudflap \
>>>> libmudflapth libstdc++ libsupc++; do
>>>> rm -f $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{versmainlibdir}/$lib.la
>>>> done
>>>> - ---8<--------------------------------------------------------
>>>> Wed Jul 12 15:24:59 CEST 2006 - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>> - - Remove libstdc++, fortran and objc .la files.
>>>> - ---8<--------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Bad idea ;)
>>>>
>>>> https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=215548
>>> and actually it is wanted that way. afaik debian is going to remove all
>>> .la files aswell.
>
> Hm, ok, so how to build the packages that expect to find a libstdc++.la
They "expect" a libstdc++.la only if another .la has libstc++.la in
dependecy_libs (*). In that case, rebuild the package owning the other
.la file (which might require a rebuild of another package and so on...).
If you look at current factory, no .la file references libstdc++.la anymore.
Michal
(*) OK, the package could hardcode -l/usr/lib/libstc++.la in a Makefile,
but that's broken anyway.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
