[Fedora-packaging] exemptions for .la files in some -devel packages ?
rdieter at math.unl.edu
Mon Apr 9 13:15:29 UTC 2007
Rex Dieter wrote:
> Jeremy Hinegardner wrote:
>> I'm doing a couple of Merge Reviews for apr and apr-util and there
>> seems to be an issue over the inclusion of the .la files in the
>> apr-devel and apr-util-devel rpms.
>> According to the Review Guidelines .la files are NOT allowed, but I have
>> been informed via the bugzilla tickets that the .la files in these
>> packages are required and cannot be removed.
>>  - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225253
>>  - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225254
> There are always exceptions, though I'll take a closer look myself
> tomorrow. I would venture that apr/apr-util is fixable, whether that
> means moving the .la files to -static or omitting altogether.
Upon further investigation, I'm not convinced (yet) that including .la
files here is justified, though I've asked Joe for clarification of his
position on that:
fwiw, I've rebuilt apr/apr-util/subversion/neon with .la files omitted,
and haven't discovered any immediate problems.
The only hint of his motivation I've found (so far) was in the neon
merge review on this same topic:
"- the .la file is part of the defined interface so will not be dropped.
(it's used by third-party apps via "neon-config --la-file"
I'm not sure I buy this argument, and I'd argue 3rd party apps should be
fixed to not rely on the .la file(s) being present.
More information about the Fedora-packaging