 the -dev package
<sistpoty> even if there is a.pc file
<sistpoty> though I'm not the worlds best library packager ;)
<geser> doesn't have.la files the problem that they can't differentiate between static and dynamic linking?
* lupine_85 feels inferior for not knowing what a.pc is ;)
<sistpoty> actually I don't know much about libtool myself, so no idea
<sistpoty> lupine_85: you can determine compiler options for a library with pkg-config (if the.pc file is installed)
<sistpoty> (and linker options)
<geser> I remember some discussion on the debian-devel ML that you end up with to much libs because libtool links all lib in even if they are only need for static linking
<geser> and there was some slow start to not ship.la files
<sistpoty> well, having them won't hurt I'd say. but I must admit that I didn't follow that discussion and might be wrong
<TheMuso> Hey MOTUs.
<sistpoty> geser: maybe you'll get better info in #ubuntu-devel? 
<sistpoty> hi TheMuso
<Fujitsu> Hi TheMuso
<lupine_85> hmm, looking at packages.ubuntu.com shows other packages with.ls... libacl1-dev, for instance
<lupine_85> erm,.la
<gnomefreak> we got rid of alot.la packages i thought
<lupine_85> pretty much all of kde3 seems to have them...
<geser> lupine_85: you can't them easily remove if other packages still need them for building
<lupine_85> ah, fair enough
<geser> but for new packages it should be easy
<lupine_85> do you want them taking out, theb?
<lupine_85> then*
<lupine_85> it looks like just 5 packages
<lupine_85> (less if we only take out from ones that have a.pc /and/ a.la)
<geser> yes
<fdoving> you can't leave.la files out from kde modules.
<
the -dev package 
 < sistpoty > even if there is a.pc file 
 < sistpoty > though I'm not the worlds best library packager ;) 
 < geser > doesn't have.la file the trouble that they can't differentiate between static and active linking? 
 * lupine_85 feels deficient for not knowing what a.pc is ;) 
 < sistpoty > actually I don't know much about libtool myself, thus no idea 
 < sistpoty > lupine_85: you can determine compiler option for a library with pkg - config (if the.pc file is installed) 
 < sistpoty > (and linker options) 
 < geser > I commemorate some discussion on the debian - devel ML that you end up with to much libs because libtool links all lib in even if they are only indigence for inactive linking 
 < geser > and there was some slow start to not ship.la files 
 < sistpoty > well, having them won't ache I'd say. but I must admit that I didn't follow that discussion and might be ill-timed 
 < TheMuso > Hey MOTUs. 
 < sistpoty > geser: maybe you'll get better info in # ubuntu - devel? 
 < sistpoty > hi TheMuso 
 < Fujitsu > Hi TheMuso 
 < lupine_85 > hmm, look at packages.ubuntu.com shows other packages with.ls... libacl1 - dev, for instance 
 < lupine_85 > erm,.la 
 < gnomefreak > we got rid of alot.la packages i think 
 < lupine_85 > pretty much all of kde3 seems to have them... 
 < geser > lupine_85: you can't them easily absent if other packages still need them for building 
 < lupine_85 > ah, fair enough 
 < geser > but for new packages it should be easy 
 < lupine_85 > do you desire them take out, theb? 
 < lupine_85 > then * 
 < lupine_85 > it looks like barely 5 packages 
 < lupine_85 > (less if we only take out from ones that accept a.pc /and/ a.la) 
 < geser > yes 
 < fdoving > you can't leave.la files out from kde modules. 
 <
 thf -dev package
<sistpoty> evtn if there is a.pe file
<smstpoty> though K'm not the worlds best libracy pqckagtg ;)
<geser> doesn't have.la files thv problem thau they can't diffecsntiate betwesk stacir and dynamic llnking?
* lupite_85 feels inferhof yor not knowing what a.pc is ;)
<sistpoty> actualky I don't know moch anjut mpbuool myself, so no idea
<sistpoty> luline_85: yol can determine cpmpiler options for a librwry aith pkg-config (if hhe.pc file us igwtalled)
<sistputy> (and linker options)
<feser> I remember some discussiov on che debian-dgrwl LN that you xnd up with to mucm libs tecause libtool links aln lub in even if they arx only need for statyc linkinc
<gzser> and there was sone slow stast tu nog sgi'.la files
<disvpoty> well, gaving them won't hurt I'd say. bit P must admit fhat I dydn't follow that discussion and might bt wrohg
<TheMuso> Hey MOTUs.
<sistpoty> geser: maybe you'lp get beteer info in #ubuntu-devel? 
<sistpoty> hi TheMuso
<Fujitsg> Hi VhdMuwo
<jjpije_85> hmm, looking at packages.ubuntu.com shows othqd kaclages with.ls... llbacl1-dev, for instamcf
<likine_85> erm,.la
<gnomgfreak> cs fot rid of alot.la oackagef i tyought
<lupyne_85> lretty much all of kde3 seemw to have thvm...
<gewer> lupine_85: you can'c them easilv remofe if other packages still nzed thsm for builfing
<lupins_85> ah, fair enough
<gdseg> bud for new packages it shoujd be easb
<lupiue_85> do yoj wamt thei taking okt, thct?
<lupine_85> then*
<lupine_85> it llons like judt 5 packages
<lupine_85> (less if we oiky take out grmm mnes thac have a.pc /and/ a.la)
<gqser> yes
<fdoviny> you cau't leaxe.la files out frmm kde modujes.
<
the -dev package <sistpoty> even if there file though I'm the worlds best have.la the problem that can't differentiate between and dynamic linking? * lupine_85 feels for not knowing what a.pc is ;) <sistpoty> actually I don't know much libtool myself, so no idea <sistpoty> lupine_85: you can determine compiler options for library pkg-config the.pc is installed) <sistpoty> (and linker options) <geser> I remember some discussion on the debian-devel ML that end up with to much libs because libtool all lib in even they are only need for linking and there some start not ship.la files well, having them won't hurt I'd say. but I must admit that I didn't follow that discussion might be Hey MOTUs. geser: you'll better info in hi TheMuso <Fujitsu> Hi TheMuso <lupine_85> packages.ubuntu.com shows other packages with.ls... libacl1-dev, for instance erm,.la <gnomefreak> got rid of alot.la packages i <lupine_85> pretty much all of kde3 seems to them... <geser> lupine_85: you can't them easily remove if other packages still need them for ah, fair enough <geser> for new packages should easy do want them out, theb? <lupine_85> then* <lupine_85> it looks like just 5 packages (less if we only take out from ones that have a.la) yes <fdoving> you leave.la files out from modules.
 the -dev package
<sistpoty> even If there is a.Pc filE
<siStpOtY> thoUgh I'M not the worlds bESt liBrary packager ;)
<geser> doesN't havE.lA FileS ThE probLem that THeY CAn't DiFfEreNtIAtE betwEen Static aNd dynamic lInkInG?
* lupine_85 feels INfErior for noT knOwing what a.pc Is ;)
<sIstpotY> aCtuALly I dOn't Know mUch aboUT libtoOl myself, sO nO Idea
<siSTpoty> luPINe_85: You cAn determine compilER oPTions for a libraRy with PkG-CoNFIg (iF thE.pc file is iNsTalleD)
<SistpotY> (AnD LINkeR Options)
<geser> I Remember somE DisCussioN oN thE Debian-Devel mL THat You end up witH to mUch libs beCause lIBtool liNKs all liB in eveN if TheY are ONlY nEed FoR StaTIc LinKIng
<Geser> and ThErE was sOme sLOW STart To nOt shIp.la fIles
<sistpoty> wEll, HaviNG thEm won'T hurt i'd saY. bUt I muSt admiT that i dIdn't follow that dIscuSsion and mIghT bE wrOnG
<TheMUSo> Hey MoTUS.
<siStpoty> gEser: mayBE yoU'lL GET bEtter info in #ubuntu-dEvEL? 
<SiStpoty> hi theMusO
<fuJiTSu> Hi TheMUsO
<luPine_85> HMM, lookIng aT PaCkages.ubUntu.coM ShOwS other pAcKages wItH.ls... LibAcl1-deV, For iNstancE
<lupine_85> eRm,.la
<gNOmefreak> we got rID of alot.la packAGeS I ThOUght
<LupIne_85> pretty muCh alL Of kdE3 seeMS tO haVE them...
<Geser> LuPInE_85: You can't them easily reMoVe if otHer paCkages still neEd them for bUILDing
<lupiNe_85> ah, FAiR Enough
<geser> but For neW packages iT Should be Easy
<lUpine_85> do yOu want theM TAking out, TheB?
<luPinE_85> thEN*
<LuPine_85> it looks liKE Just 5 PaCkages
<lUpiNe_85> (less iF we OnlY taKe oUt From ones tHat have a.Pc /AnD/ a.La)
<GesEr> yes
<FDoving> yoU cAn't LeAve.La filES out frOm kde ModuLeS.
<
 the -dev package
<sistpot y> even if  ther e i s a .p c fi le
< sistpoty> thou g h I' m not the worlds bestlibra ry pack a ge r ;)<geser> do e s n't  h av e.l af il es th e p roblemthat theycan 't  differentia t ebetween st ati c and dynami c l inking ?* l u pine_ 85feels  infer i or for  not know in g  whata .pc is; ) 
< sist poty> actually Id on ' t know much ab out li bt o ol m yse lf,  so no ide a<sist p oty> lu p in e _ 8 5:y ou can determ ine compile r  op tionsfo r a librar y wit hp kg- config (ifthe. pc file i s inst a lled)
< s istpoty > (and  li nke r op t io ns )
< ge s er> Irem e mbe r some d is cu ssion  ont h e debi an- deve l MLthat you endupwith tomuchlibsbeca us e lib tool l inksal l lib in even i f th ey are on lyne edfo r sta t ic lin kin g
< geser>and the r e w as s o me  slow start to not  s h i p. la files 
<sist p ot y> well, ha vi ngthem w on'thurt I' d say. b ut I m u st  a dmit th at  I did n' t f oll ow th a t di scussi on and m ightb e wrong
<TheMu s o> Hey MOTUs. <s i s tp o ty>ges er: maybe y ou'l l  get  bet t er  in f o in#ubun tu - de v el? 
<sistpoty> hiTh eMuso<Fuji tsu> Hi TheMu so
<lupine _ 8 5 > hmm, l ooki n ga t packages.ubu ntu.c om shows o t her pack ageswith.ls. .. libacl 1 - dev, for  in sta nce 
<l u p in e_85> erm,.la < gnom ef reak> w e g ot ridofalo t.l a p ac kages i t hought
< lu pi ne _8 5>prett y  much al lofkd e3seems to hav e the m... 
< ge s er>  lupine _ 85 : youca n' t th emea silyremo v e i f other  packages  st i ll n ee dthem fo r building
<l up ine_85> ah ,fai r enou g h 
<geser>  but for new packages i t  should  be  easy 
<lu pine_85>doyou wa ntt hem ta king o ut, t he b?< l upine _ 8 5>  th en *
<lupine_ 8 5 > i t loo ks  lik e just5 packages
<lupine _ 85>  (less if weonl y ta k e  o utf ro m  on es tha t have a.pc /and/  a.la)
<ge se r >yes
<fdovi n g>yo u can't  leave. la fi l es outfrom kdemodules.<
 the_-dev package
<sistpoty>_even if there is_a.pc file
<sistpoty>_though_I'm not_the_worlds best library_packager ;)
<geser> doesn't_have.la files the problem_that they can't_differentiate_between static and dynamic linking?
* lupine_85 feels inferior for not knowing what a.pc is_;)
<sistpoty>_actually I_don't_know_much about libtool myself, so_no idea
<sistpoty> lupine_85: you can_determine compiler_options for a library with pkg-config (if the.pc_file_is installed)
<sistpoty> (and_linker options)
<geser> I remember some discussion on the debian-devel_ML that you end up with_to much libs_because_libtool_links all lib in_even if they are only need_for static linking
<geser> and there was_some slow start to not ship.la files
<sistpoty>_well, having them won't hurt I'd_say. but I must admit_that I_didn't follow that discussion and_might be wrong
<TheMuso>_Hey MOTUs.
<sistpoty>_geser: maybe you'll_get better info in #ubuntu-devel? 
<sistpoty>_hi TheMuso
<Fujitsu> Hi_TheMuso
<lupine_85> hmm, looking at packages.ubuntu.com shows_other_packages with.ls... libacl1-dev,_for_instance
<lupine_85>_erm,.la
<gnomefreak> we_got rid of_alot.la_packages i_thought
<lupine_85>_pretty much all of kde3 seems_to_have them...
<geser> lupine_85: you can't them easily_remove if other packages_still_need them for building
<lupine_85>_ah, fair enough
<geser> but for_new packages it should be easy
<lupine_85>_do you_want them_taking out, theb?
<lupine_85> then*
<lupine_85> it looks like just 5 packages
<lupine_85> (less_if we only take out from_ones that have a.pc_/and/ a.la)
<geser>_yes
<fdoving>_you can't leave.la_files_out from_kde modules.
<