[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Bug#419228: unnecessary linkage when libtool convenience libraries (

From: Kurt Roeckx
Subject: Re: Bug#419228: unnecessary linkage when libtool convenience libraries (noinst_LTLIBRARIES) are used
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 01:22:30 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11)

On Thu, Apr 19, 2007 at 08:16:07PM +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * Andreas Metzler wrote on Thu, Apr 19, 2007 at 08:02:36PM CEST:
> > On 2007-04-19 Ralf Wildenhues <address@hidden> wrote:
> > > And libtool remembers by putting the library dependency into the
> > > file.
> > 
> > And that is exactly what goes wrong. It does not put the library
> > dependency in the la file, it puts the library dependency and *its*
> > dependencies in the la file.
> D'oh.
> > > I sense that we are talking past each other all the time. 
> > 
> > I also get that feeling.
> Thanks for bearing with me, I feel a bit better now.
> OK, now that I (think I) understand the issue, I guess it's the right
> thing for Debian libtool (with its link_all_deplibs=no) to also not link
> against these indirect deplibs stemming from a convenience archive's
> deplibs.  This feature should be specific to systems with
> link_all_deplibs=no, though.  It can be pulled into upstream once the
> indirect deplibs issues are fixed (one of them being that uninstalled
> indirect deplibs aren't found).

So would the attached patch be acceptable for now?  I'm thinking about
adding that to the Debian patch.


Attachment: convience_deplibs.diff
Description: Text Data

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]