Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 12:23:24 +0200 From: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Cc: Oliver Eikemeier <eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com> Subject: Re: libtool library Message-ID: <20040612122324.363c49de@Magellan.Leidinger.net> In-Reply-To: <098F791E-BBA0-11D8-8F7D-00039312D914@fillmore-labs.com> References: <40C999B6.4050706@debank.tv> <098F791E-BBA0-11D8-8F7D-00039312D914@fillmore-labs.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 14:08:23 +0200
Oliver Eikemeier <eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com> wrote:
> Rob Evers wrote:
>
> > What's the policy on installing .la files of ported software. I thought
> > to remember it's prefered not to install these. Ist this correct and
> > why ?
>
> The current `official' policy is not to install .la files
> because they have been considered useless. Many developers
> consider this policy to be wrong since in some cases they
> are required.
If a port uses libtdl, the .la files are required for those libs the
ports depends on, or for plugins the port installs. At least this was
the case with libtdl 1.3.x.
That's the only case I know of which makes the .la files a requirement.
If we would patch libtdl to not open the .la files, but open the .so
file directly, we wouldn't even need the .la files in this case.
Bye,
Alexander.
--
I'm available to get hired (preferred in .lu).
http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net
GPG fingerprint = C518 BC70 E67F 143F BE91 3365 79E2 9C60 B006 3FE7
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040612122324.363c49de>