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

Axel Thimm Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Sat Oct 14 11:29:28 UTC 2006

On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 02:20:19PM +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote:
> 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.

Yes, thanks, that's correct and what I meant.

> ...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...

I think the thread made clear that this is not the case.
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/20061014/4997de0b/attachment.sig>

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list