Packaging policy for libtool .la files

[Sam Varshavchik]

Is there a set of packaging guidelines for libtool's .la files?

There seems to be some inconsistency here.

1) libieee1284 and libieee1284-devel: .la files are installed by 
libieee1284-devel rpm

2) arts and arts-devel: .la files are installed by the arts rpm

3) gnutls: the spec file removes and does not install the .la files

>From what I can tell, #1 should be the policy. I do not believe that .la 
files are needed at runtime. libtool uses them only during the compile and 
link cycle. Furthermore, I'd question the decision to remove them 
completely, unless having them actually creates a problem.

I needed to work with a newer version of gnutls. I used the spec file and 
forced _prefix to /usr/local, to have everything installed there.

What I found that even if I properly build and link against /usr/local, at 
runtime my rpath is not set correctly, and the binary loads 
/usr/lib64/libgnutls.so.26, instead of /usr/local/lib64/libgnutls.so.26, 
even though I linked against it. I had to hack out the spec file and put the 
.la files into libgnutls-devel, so that at linktime, libtool could sprinkle 
its pixie dust and put the correct rpath into the resulting ELF object.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20090222/fceb59ce/attachment.sig>