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

Rex Dieter rdieter at math.unl.edu
Wed Jan 17 15:56:44 UTC 2007

Axel Thimm wrote:

> I think we should fix that upstream, we know the authors are willing
> to fix it, but they asked for some use case to demonstrate the
> problem.

By upstream here, you mean libtool upstream, I assume.

Yes, basically, they want someone else to fix it for them and write 
test-cases, which I doubt anyone here has time to do (me anyway).  ):

> The biggest problem *.la inclusing/exclusion have cost are endless
> recurring discussions on working around the current state of affairs
> (deleting all, keeping all, deleting some, deleting some more, and
> still being surprised when kde or something else will pick up
> non-devel *.la functionality etc.).

AFAIK, the only unknown up to this point was kde, which I've found it is 
fixable (runtime, at least).  I'm aware of no other cases where .la 
files are required for runtime function.

-- Rex

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list