packages: cairo/cairo-link.patch, cairo/cairo.spec - 1.10.0 - merged from d...
baggins at sith.mimuw.edu.pl
Sat Sep 18 15:15:17 CEST 2010
On Sat, 18 Sep 2010, Tomasz Pala wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 14:21:23 +0200, Jan Rękorajski wrote:
> >> > What about just drop *.la and leave -static?
> >> Would they build without .la in place?
> > Libraries? Of course, static libs are just plain simple ar archives of
> > compiled objects (compiled, NOT linked).
> Would they 'be useful' without .la in place?
> Just not to repeat:
Good point (last link). So we just have to check if libtool can cope
with static libs without .la present.
> >> > specs, and we still have static libs for those people that may need it.
> >> Are there any? I can't remember if I've ever used them... (except some
> >> base system libs).
> > Did you read what I wrote? vim-static? initrd stuff?
> They may be considered 'base'. I'm referring here to 'desktop libs'
> you've suggested to keep static too just like they are now (KISS), didn't you?
Yes, I did. It's that if we build some static libs we will sooner or
later have a mess, we'll get confused as to why this lib has a static
package and other lib don't. So IMO it's better to just leave them all
and cope with that very few packages that may need them.
As for our users, AFAIR static libs were built for debugging purposes,
and back then we didn't have debuginfo packages. If someone really
wants to go static then he knows what he's doing and it's not our
problem if static packages do not provide entire linking chain.
Jan Rękorajski | ALL SUSPECTS ARE GUILTY. PERIOD!
baggins<at>mimuw.edu.pl | OTHERWISE THEY WOULDN'T BE SUSPECTS, WOULD THEY?
BOFH, MANIAC | -- TROOPS by Kevin Rubio
More information about the pld-devel-en