[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Help-smalltalk] Questions on GNU Smalltalk packaging

From: Mike Anderson
Subject: Re: [Help-smalltalk] Questions on GNU Smalltalk packaging
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 10:22:41 +0000
User-agent: Thunderbird (X11/20061025)

Stephen Compall wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-01-21 at 21:54 +0000, Mike Anderson wrote:
>> ...but the dynamic loading mechanism can load .so libraries as well - it
>> doesn't rely on .la files. is built - you could install that
>> instead if you wanted to, couldn't you?
> Strictly speaking, ltdl is advertised as most reliable when .la's are
> available.  If .so's work as well in some cases, great; but why create
> an unneeded portability worry for the future to rediscover?

I've miscommunicated. Thomas' question was in two parts, and Paolo's
answer suggested that the answer to both parts was "yes". I wanted to
point out that ".la"s are not required, not advocate using ".so"s where
".la"s are available.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]