[Xquartz-dev] 2.3.0-rc5
Jeremy Huddleston
jeremyhu at apple.com
Thu Jul 10 09:28:39 PDT 2008
On Jul 9, 2008, at 23:13, Peter O'Gorman wrote:
>> no longer shipping libtool archive files /usr/X11/lib/*.la
> I am not sure that this is a good idea. Anyone who has built libraries
> with libtool that depend on X libs may have .la files that contain the
> path to /usr/X11/lib/libfoo.la, future use of those libraries when
> linking with libtool will result in error.
Yes, but there is another problem that occurs when they are there and
the .la file is not consistent with the installed binary files. I'm
sorry that this may cause problems with other .la files that reference
these. What do you propose we could do to cleanly fix this problem?
> Also, most users already have .la files in /usr/X11/lib, does this
> update remove them?
Yes. This update removes them
> If not the .la files that remain may point at the
> wrong (non-existent) libraries, which will result in error.
>
>
> Surely, just shipping up-to-date .la files is a more appropriate
> solution?
However, the .la files are shipped from Apple in X11SDK.pkg while
the .dylibs are shipped with X11User.pkg. X11SDK is updated with
XCode and X11User is updated with OS Updates. That is where the
problem lies.
> Some distros do not ship .la files if they can possibly avoid it, and
> that is understandable, installed .la files have some rather serious
> issues, but is removing them in a minor update like this really
> advisable?
That is why I'm doing this in a rc, to get peoples comments and
feedback... if this causes more problems than it solves, then we need
to figure out another solution (maybe continuing to ship the .la with
the macosforge.org release for Leopard but not shipping them with
SnowLeopard).
--Jeremy
More information about the Xquartz-dev
mailing list