[th/rpm] R: libtool(*.la) - good or bad

[Jeff Johnson]

On Nov 26, 2006, at 4:12 PM, Tomasz Trojanowski wrote:

> On Sun, 2006-11-26 at 21:50 +0100, Arkadiusz Miskiewicz wrote:
>> On Saturday 25 November 2006 00:35, Arkadiusz Miskiewicz wrote:
>>> On Saturday 25 November 2006 00:10, Arkadiusz Miskiewicz wrote:
>>>> On Thursday 23 November 2006 22:26, Arkadiusz Miskiewicz wrote:
>>>>
>>>> http://cvs.pld-linux.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/SOURCES/file- 
>>>> offset.patch?rev=1.1
>>>
>>> More hacky but better :)
>>> http://cvs.pld-linux.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/SOURCES/file-offset.patch? 
>>> rev=1.2
>>
>> Of course there are still problems.
>>
>>  libdb.la symlink to real file libdb-4.5.la
>>
>> Now other packages get R: libtool(libdb.la) but nothing provides  
>> it since it's
>> not detected.
>>
>> Wouldn't be it better to generate Requires: /usr/lib/file.la  
>> instead of
>> libtool(/usr/lib/file.la) ? That way we wouldn't need to rebuild  
>> all packages
>> containing .la files.
>
> Or simply:
>
> --- libtooldeps.sh.orig 2006-11-26 00:16:19 +0100
> +++ libtooldeps.sh      2006-11-26 22:06:56 +0100
> @@ -30,6 +30,7 @@
>             do
>                 case "$dep" in
>                 /*.la)
> +                   $dep = `readlink -f $dep`
>                     echo "libtool($dep)"
>                     ;;
>                 esac
>

Nice.

FWIW, libdb.la within rpm is a sick Makefile hack. Patches cheerfully  
accepted.

73 de Jeff