[Fedora-packaging] Re: libtool(.la) archive policy proposal

Axel Thimm Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Thu Oct 12 21:02:46 UTC 2006

On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 05:01:03PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Oct 12, 2006, Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net> wrote:
> > Seems to really depend on the software generating/using them. Or from
> > a different viewpoint: if they really were not required (on Linux),
> > then why are libtool authors installing them (on Linux)? We wouldn't
> > be having this thread if the simple statement ".la files are not
> > required" would indeed hold true.
> They're part of the portable libtool library abstraction.  Removing
> them means you give up some of the portability.

Pretending not to have read the following restricting paragraph: If
*.la files were indeed unnecessary/redundant on a platform, let's call
it *-redhat-no-static-linux-gnu, then *.la file installation could be
skipped. But since we only think we live on such a platform this isn't

> On GNU/Linux, with the further constraint of not using static
> libraries, and only installing libraries in directories searched by
> both ld and ld.so, you don't lose or miss anything.

So you would lose on /opt and if some lib needs static linking, and
this decision is non-local as you properly explained in some other
part of this thread. E.g. we would globally remove degrees of freedom
for little gain.
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/attachments/20061012/8fedddfb/attachment.sig>

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list