On Sat, 2006-10-14 at 13:58 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 02:45:31PM +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-10-14 at 13:29 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 02:20:19PM +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote:
> > > ...and in many cases, end up unnecessarily bloating linkage of
> > > binaries/libs in main packages too, making things like soname changes
> > > even more painful than they already are...
> > I think the thread made clear that this is not the case.
> If it did, I missed it. Got any pointers to posts that support the
> above conclusion to share?
How about this thread? No, honestly check the discussion especially
Alexandre's posts who goes into the details of both libtool and
non-libtool library internals.
I think this is the best statement from Alexandre of the facts which he
works out over the course of the message. I think there are two options
for what to do about it:
A) Get rid of .la's with the possible exception of when static libraries
are kept (maybe this can go along with Ralf's Static Library proposal).
Uses of lt_dlopen("foo.la") are bugs and should be fixed by converting
B) Keep all *.la's and create the complete Requires chains specified by
the .la file (could be automated some day.) And also have Application
packages that use lt_dlopen("foo.la") Require: the chains of library
file *.la's that contain them. (Which either means application packages
Requiring: *-devel packages or application and main library packages
(libfoo rather than libfoo-devel) holding the *.la's)