[Pkg-openmpi-maintainers] Bug#456721: Processed: Re: Bug#456721:libpetsc.so depends on unexistent libraries

[Manuel Prinz]

Hi Adam!

Thanks for your explanations. I have one question still:

Am Mittwoch, den 19.12.2007, 08:40 -0500 schrieb Adam C Powell IV:
> I think the confusion is: the .la files are not the static libs, they
> are libtool metadata files.  The -dev package needs to include the .a
> static libs.  The .la files are completely optional, and there's some
> difference of opinion on whether or not they are beneficial.  If
> upstream installs them, I'd put them in the -dev package.

The reasoning for dropping the .la files was that we don't build .a
files. My understanding is that .la is useless without .a, so installing
them did not make much sence to me. Or am I wrong here?

> Either way, "where upstream puts it" is probably the right place for it.
> The only exception being libmpi.so which is an alternatives symlink and
> not a regular symlink in order to fit in with the other MPI
> implementations.

That was the reasoning why I did that.

> Sure, though mpicc should include the -I required to find it anyway.
> It's up to you.  I'd leave it in its own dir to avoid possible
> collisions.

That was my reason for handling it that way.

Best regards
Manuel
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-openmpi-maintainers/attachments/20071220/2d5b4db8/attachment-0005.pgp