On Oct 2, 2006, Enrico Scholz <enrico.scholz(a)informatik.tu-chemnitz.de> wrote:
> - If -la was needed for building libb, then there exists a real
> dependency between liba and libb and libb.la is correct about that.
No, this dependency does not need to be handled explicitly with
dynamic
libraries.
And it's actually harmful if you move the .so link to the -devel
package, which is the general recommendation.
Consider that foo-devel provides libfoo.so, which is a link to
libfoo.so.0 provided by foo-libs.
Consider that libfoo.so.0 depends on libbar.so.0, provided by
bar-libs.
If you link with -lfoo without libtool, it just works.
If you link with -lfoo with libtool, and libtool finds the .la file
that lists -lbar as a dependency of libfoo.la, then you lose unless
you list bar-devel as a dependency of foo-devel.
Is the absence of such an otherwise-unnecessary dependency a bug in
package foo?
--
Alexandre Oliva
http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Secretary for FSF Latin America
http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva(a){redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist oliva(a){lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}