[Fedora-packaging] Re: LibtoolArchives, v0.3

Rex Dieter rdieter at math.unl.edu
Wed Jan 17 16:36:36 UTC 2007

Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-01-17 at 17:06 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote:
>> O
>> My proposal is to allow *.la files to live and kindly divert people
>> crying too loud about it to assist upstream in fixing the
>> issues. Don't forget that there are already patches for dealing with
>> 95% of our issues available.
> I'm really not trying to rehash this thread, but the original reason for
> nuking .la files was the nasty tendency they had of creating bogus (?)
> dependency spirals of doom. Am I wrong in remembering that? If I'm not
> wrong, has this been solved somehow?

Nope, still an unsolved problem.

> If this is indeed still the case, why would we want to bring them back?

We we're not, the proposal is only changing the "MUST omit" to "SHOULD 

Some packages (still) require .la files for linking (kde *cough*), I'm 
just hoping to codify that by saying when/if .la files are required, 
they SHOULD/MUST go in -devel.

Maybe we just need to let bygones be bygones and leave the guideline 
as-is, and simply make exceptions (kdelibs, etc...) on a case-by-case basis.

-- Rex

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list