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

Ville Skyttä ville.skytta at iki.fi
Sat Oct 14 11:20:19 UTC 2006

On Sat, 2006-10-14 at 13:05 +0200, Enrico Scholz wrote:
> Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net (Axel Thimm) writes:
> > The outcome for me is that the "drawback" of keeping *.la files
> > unconditionally is that some *.devel files get a couple too many
> > BRs,

-devel packages get bloated Requires, not BuildRequires.  Or if they're
not there, other packages in a lot of cases need bloated BuildRequires
in order to only accomplish also unnecessarily bloating the resulting
binaries/libs, see below.

> > and a very few (like kdelibs) get a dozen too many.
> ... and that you have to put .la files into main packages (which is
> adding untracked dependencies) and you slow down module loading...

...and in many cases, end up unnecessarily bloating linkage of
binaries/libs in main packages too, making things like soname changes
even more painful than they already are...

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list