On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 4:17 PM, Colin Walters <walters(a)verbum.org> wrote:
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 7:15 PM, Dan Nicholson
<dbn.lists(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 2:21 PM, Colin Walters <walters(a)verbum.org> wrote:
>>
>> The ideal of course would be to convince libtool upstream that trying
>> to change the entire world to use libtool makes a lot less sense than
>> having those few modules that interact with shared libraries have
>> platform-specific code.
>
> The libtool developers understand that the .la files aren't needed in
> normal operation. The reason that they insist on keeping them is so
> that `make uninstall' works since the .la files are the only place
> that store information about the actual libraries (.so + links vs. .a,
> etc.).
Right - we have a "make uninstall", it's called "rpm -e".
OK, now convince the libtool developers to break everyone's `make
distcheck'. Might be tough. But I certainly would support a way to opt
out of that situation at build time. Something like:
export LIBTOOLFLAGS="--no-installed-la-files"
--
Dan