David Pirotte writes:
> Le Sun, 26 Jun 2011 22:15:23 +0200,
> Andreas Rottmann a écrit :
>
> ...
>> The solution (other than just removing the offending .la files) would be to
>> re-build and re-install all software depending on libgc-dev, including
>> g-wrap, as to get rid of the stale referenc
Le Sun, 26 Jun 2011 22:15:23 +0200,
Andreas Rottmann a écrit :
...
> The solution (other than just removing the offending .la files) would be to
> re-build and re-install all software depending on libgc-dev, including
> g-wrap, as to get rid of the stale references to libgc's .la file.
>
> [0] h
Hello,
Andreas Rottmann skribis:
> On the GNU system, there is (somewhat ironically) no real advantage of
> having .la files that I know of
It’s needed at least when linking statically, because the .la file
contains dependency info not otherwise available (what pkg-config tries
to solve with ‘L
David Pirotte writes:
> Hello,
>
> Thinking it was a libgc-dev debian package problem I posted a mail ... and
> got the
> following 2 answers [below].
>
> Once I manually removed all *.la files from my /usr/local/lib tree, I could
> further
> try to compile guile-gnome-platform against gcc-4.6.
Hello,
Thinking it was a libgc-dev debian package problem I posted a mail ... and got
the
following 2 answers [below].
Once I manually removed all *.la files from my /usr/local/lib tree, I could
further
try to compile guile-gnome-platform against gcc-4.6.
As the list of *.la files I removed d