On Sat, 09 Apr 2011 11:25:34 +0200
Thomas Girard <thomas.g.girard@free.fr> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> regarding bug #621170 filed against gnu-smalltak for *.la removal, here
> is the current situation:
>
> gnu-smalltalk packages contains /usr/lib/gnu-smalltalk/libc.la
>
> I'm attaching it here for the reference.

Thanks.

> Please note that the .la file is *not* in a -dev package. It's not
> intended to be used by any other package, but by the GNU Smalltalk VM
> to be able to dynamically load the libc (using libtdl) whatever the libc
> is (e.g. libc.so.6 or libc.so.0.1), and without requiring
> libc6-dev package to be installed.
>
> For more details on the way load works see:
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=621170#20
>
> Hence I believe this bug can be closed without any action. Do you agree
> with this analysis?

Useful to document the rationale but as dependency_libs is
currently empty and you have a reason to use the .la, it should be fine
to close 621170.

Just hold for a bit, in case there are any further comments from others
on -devel.

--


Neil Williams
=============
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/

Hello,

Le 09/04/2011 12:46, Neil Williams a écrit :
> Useful to document the rationale but as dependency_libs is
> currently empty and you have a reason to use the .la, it should be fine
> to close 621170.
>
> Just hold for a bit, in case there are any further comments from others
> on -devel.

It's been a while now, no further comment. I'm closing this bug.

Regards,

Thomas


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 4DAAA457.5000706@free.fr">http://lists.debian.org/4DAAA457.5000706@free.fr