Bug#621170: gnu-smalltalk: Getting rid of unneeded *.la / emptying dependency_libs
Hello, regarding bug #621170 filed against gnu-smalltak for *.la removal, here is the current situation: gnu-smalltalk packages contains /usr/lib/gnu-smalltalk/libc.la I'm attaching it here for the reference. Please note that the .la file is *not* in a -dev package. It's not intended to be used by any other package, but by the GNU Smalltalk VM to be able to dynamically load the libc (using libtdl) whatever the libc is (e.g. libc.so.6 or libc.so.0.1), and without requiring libc6-dev package to be installed. For more details on the way load works see: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=621170#20 Hence I believe this bug can be closed without any action. Do you agree with this analysis? Thanks, Regards, Thomas # libc.la - a libtool library file # Generated by GNU libtool # Created for GNU Smalltalk's dynamic loading mechanism. # The name that we can dlopen(3). dlname='libc.so.6' # Names of this library. library_names='libc.so.6' # Libraries that this one depends upon. dependency_libs='' # Is this an already installed library? installed=yes # Directory that this library needs to be installed in: libdir='/lib'
Bug#621170: gnu-smalltalk: Getting rid of unneeded *.la / emptying dependency_libs
On Sat, 09 Apr 2011 11:25:34 +0200 Thomas Girard thomas.g.gir...@free.fr wrote: Hello, regarding bug #621170 filed against gnu-smalltak for *.la removal, here is the current situation: gnu-smalltalk packages contains /usr/lib/gnu-smalltalk/libc.la I'm attaching it here for the reference. Thanks. Please note that the .la file is *not* in a -dev package. It's not intended to be used by any other package, but by the GNU Smalltalk VM to be able to dynamically load the libc (using libtdl) whatever the libc is (e.g. libc.so.6 or libc.so.0.1), and without requiring libc6-dev package to be installed. For more details on the way load works see: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=621170#20 Hence I believe this bug can be closed without any action. Do you agree with this analysis? Useful to document the rationale but as dependency_libs is currently empty and you have a reason to use the .la, it should be fine to close 621170. Just hold for a bit, in case there are any further comments from others on -devel. -- Neil Williams = http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/ pgpO8lBzTbRDK.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#621170: gnu-smalltalk: Getting rid of unneeded *.la / emptying dependency_libs
On 04/06/2011 09:28 PM, codeh...@debian.org wrote: gnu-smalltalk appears in this list as a source package because one or more of the binary packages (usually -dev packages) contain .la files. I believe this is just the libc.la which is not a normal .la file and should not be removed. Paolo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#621170: [Pkg-gnu-smalltalk-devel] Bug#621170: gnu-smalltalk: Getting rid of unneeded *.la / emptying dependency_libs
Hello, Le 07/04/2011 09:10, Paolo Bonzini a écrit : On 04/06/2011 09:28 PM, codeh...@debian.org wrote: gnu-smalltalk appears in this list as a source package because one or more of the binary packages (usually -dev packages) contain .la files. I believe this is just the libc.la which is not a normal .la file and should not be removed. Indeed. This is the only .la file distributed in Debian GNU Smalltalk packages. How again is it used Paolo? Thanks, Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#621170: [Pkg-gnu-smalltalk-devel] Bug#621170: gnu-smalltalk: Getting rid of unneeded *.la / emptying dependency_libs
On 04/07/2011 12:17 PM, Thomas Girard wrote: Hello, Le 07/04/2011 09:10, Paolo Bonzini a écrit : On 04/06/2011 09:28 PM, codeh...@debian.org wrote: gnu-smalltalk appears in this list as a source package because one or more of the binary packages (usually -dev packages) contain .la files. I believe this is just the libc.la which is not a normal .la file and should not be removed. Indeed. This is the only .la file distributed in Debian GNU Smalltalk packages. How again is it used Paolo? It provides a portable way to load libc and libm across different systems. In GNU Smalltalk you can use DLD addLibrary: 'libncurses' and (provided the -dev package is installed) it will automatically load the libncurses.so shared object. Similarly it is desirable to allow DLD addLibrary: 'libc' However, libc.so is not a symbolic link to libc.so.6 unlike all other .so files (and besides that, the library itself is not called 'libc' on all systems). The simplest and most portable solution is to use a .la file. Paolo ps: yes, in the non-libc this introduces unwanted dependency on -dev packages. This will be fixed in GNU Smalltalk 3.3 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
