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

Axel Thimm Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Sat Oct 14 11:19:28 UTC 2006

On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 01:05:25PM +0200, Enrico Scholz wrote:
> ... and that you have to put .la files into main packages (which is
> adding untracked dependencies) and you slow down module loading...

You are exaggerating. How did RHL, RHEL and FC survive so far?

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"? So your complete statement
  is "*.la files are unneccessary, but they are required in the main
  package"? Simple logic implies that then the main package is
  unneccessary, too. ;)

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? Are we really going to compare a few hundred ms to several
  seconds, especially in light of where dynamic module loading is
  really used? Are we then going to rebuild Fedora based on dietlibc
  to gain a couple seconds, too?

No, I think the pain and *.la-micro-surgery needs to end. Get *.la
files back and address any remaining issues with libtool upstream. We
can live with a couple more BR in *-devel until this gets resolved. We
did so for several years.
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/20061014/8a8cafe8/attachment.sig>

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list