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

Alexandre Oliva aoliva at redhat.com
Thu Oct 12 19:44:19 UTC 2006

On Oct 12, 2006, Rex Dieter <rdieter at math.unl.edu> wrote:

> Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>>> 2.  Good thing we don't package static libs (or at least *strongly*
>>> discouraged).
>> This is too narrow a vision.
>> Fedora is a major development platform for packages that ship
>> libtool-using packages for many different platforms.
>> If we break libtool such that it still works for us

> I fail to see how simply not including static libs (or needless .la
> files) in rpms shipped in Fedora, yields the conclusion that we're
> breaking libtool.

It doesn't.  It's what you snipped out of my response that clarifies
that I objected to a patch to ignore dependency_libs, because *that*
would break libtool on other OSes, even though it would make no
visible difference for us.

> Or, are you arguing against the existing "no static lib" policy?

No, I'm not arguing against the "no static lib" policy, and I'm not
arguing against removing .la files.  I'm only arguing against patching
libtool in ways that have negative consequences for other OSes,
because this would affect Fedora users that develop on Fedora and
expect the libtool in it to deliver them portability to other OSes.

Alexandre Oliva         http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Secretary for FSF Latin America        http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer   aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist  oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list