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

Re: .la and FE guidelines

On Tue, 2007-01-09 at 00:10 +0100, Chitlesh GOORAH wrote:
> Hello
> I'm suspecting a leakage in the FE guidelines concerning .la for
> kcontrol plugins.
> kcontrol plugins require .la files in order to work properly.
> Example:
> 1) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221733
> 2) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221015#c7
> I think that these guidelines should be properly documented in that perspective.
> Any comments on this ?
> (PS: perhaps now, we should call it FE guidelines but F guidelines)

Hey Rex,

Sorry, I got busy after figuring out just the arts piece of this puzzle.
I have some time right now to go through and fix things to not
require .la files.  However, I know nothing of the kde project so I need
a little bit of advice.

* Do you think this work would be appreciated upstream or accepted
within the Fedora kde packages?
* Can you help me figure out which packages I need to look into and how
to test that the problems are gone once I patch them?

If so I'll open up a bug in bugzilla.r.c where we can track this.

P.S. For Chitlesh: The Packaging Committee has discussed this:
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/LibtoolArchives but
not yet passed it.  The fact that kde apps need .la's is arguably a bug
in upstream's code but I don't know whether we determined there was any
negative's from allowing them when they were a part of a loadable module
rather than a shared library.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

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