On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 11:20:25AM +0000, Joe Orton wrote: > `neon-config --la-file` is part of the defined and documented neon > interface: removing the .la file breaks that interface,
It's a shitty interface that warrants breaking. > and hence will break applications designed to build against neon. s/designed to build against neon/perversely making use of mis-designed interfaces/ > It is desirable to reference .la files directly No, it is not. .la files were designed to be *internal* to libtool. > The vendetta against .la files, however well-intentioned, is poorly > conceived. If you want to fix the problem of .la files unnecessarily > propagating private shared library dependencies then expend the effort > to fix it *in libtool*, just as it was fixed in pkg-config with the > introduction of Libs.private. This is not rocket science. Cool, you're so smart, *you* write the fix and get it accepted by libtool upstream. Until then, .la files are a pox, and I have no sympathy for anyone who depends on them. > Attempting to deny the existence or the utility of .la files is naive, They're only useful on broken platforms and when doing static linking. Recent pkg-config has better provisions for the latter, and the former should be encouraged to die out so that they stop making life harder for those of us running systems that aren't built on 1980s technology. > and unilaterally breaking interfaces in the packaging thereof is just > dumb. Not nearly as dumb as violating abstractions and depending on dumb interfaces in the first place, kthx. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
