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

[Enrico Scholz]

Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net (Axel Thimm) writes:

>> ... and that you have to put .la files into main packages (which is
>> adding untracked dependencies) and you slow down module loading...
>
> o Can you show a list of bugs related to main packages missing *.la
>   files to compare the pains? And doesn't this contradict your
>   statement "*.la files are unneccessary"?

AGAIN (and citing [1]): Sentence was written under the assumption that
all .la files will be shipped.

When .la will not be shipped they do not need to be in main packages
(nor in -devel ones) because they are not shipped.


> o How many milliseconds are we losing for module loading through *.la
>   files? How much faster in percentage do the modules load w/o *.la
>   files?

Dunno. But we can save these few milliseconds without any costs by
removing the .la files.



Enrico

Footnotes: 
[1]  https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2006-October/msg00062.html

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 480 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/attachments/20061014/95a8061d/attachment.sig>