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

Axel Thimm Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Sat Oct 14 11:55:36 UTC 2006

On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 01:47:08PM +0200, Enrico Scholz wrote:
> Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net (Axel Thimm) writes:
> >> ... and that you have to put .la files into main packages (which is
> >> adding untracked dependencies) and you slow down module loading...
> >
> > 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"?
> AGAIN (and citing [1]): Sentence was written under the assumption that
> all .la files will be shipped.
> When .la will not be shipped they do not need to be in main packages
> (nor in -devel ones) because they are not shipped.

The standard procedure until now is to have *.la files in *-devel
files and only have *.la files for dlopen in the main packages. That's
what is being discussed.

> > 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?

> Dunno. But we can save these few milliseconds without any costs by
> removing the .la files.

Gosh, asserting on every mail that there are no issues with removing
*.la files won't make that turn to truth. In fact if you present your
arguments as biased I (and others) can't judge on the validity of any
of your argumentation.
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/bb27c032/attachment.sig>

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list