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

Alexandre Oliva aoliva at redhat.com
Fri Oct 13 06:23:40 UTC 2006

On Oct 12, 2006, Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net> wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 05:01:03PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:

>> 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.

Right.  Keeping the .la files for these rare cases makes a lot of
sense to me.  I get the impression they never occur in Fedora packages
(I mean Core and Extras here, not packages *for* Fedora), so the
Fedora policy might very well rule out .la files entirely, even if
with a rationale explaining the assumptions behind it and
recommendations about when to break this rule in third-party packages.

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