NOT installing the .la files

Michael Nottebrock lofi at
Fri Jun 16 06:16:59 UTC 2006

On Wednesday, 14. June 2006 22:16, Mikhail Teterin wrote:
> середа 14 червень 2006 12:09, Michael Nottebrock написав:
> > Of such a buildtime error? No. Here's a line from an typical libtool
> > archive:
> >
> > # Libraries that this one depends upon.
> > dependency_libs=' -L/usr/local/lib -lz /usr/local/lib/ -lm'
> >
> > libtool will use that verbatim during linking.
> I think, it will use that verbatim only if it detected the presence of
> earlier -- just as the literal "/usr/local" must be a
> configure-time setting.
> The libiconv-1.9.2_1 installed on this computer, for example, did not come
> with a Yet everything seems to have built fine after it...

Yes - most user's installations, like yours, are currently in a phase of 
transition, where some ports already have had their libraries installed with 
libtool archives and some have not - that transition works smoothly. The 
other way around, it does not.

> Unless there is a convincing example of things breaking without an .la
> file, these should be deleted.

You know it doesn't work that way around. Prove that it's safe, before you go 
ahead and potentially break everyone's installations out there. There's 
convincing evidence it's not - after all, the old libtool *was* patched in 
order to support this (and still never quite did for everything, I and kde@ 
should know), while the current one is not.

   ,_,   | Michael Nottebrock               | lofi at
 (/^ ^\) | FreeBSD - The Power to Serve     |
   \u/   | K Desktop Environment on FreeBSD |
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list