[Fedora-packaging] Re: LibtoolArchives, v0.3
Tom 'spot' Callaway
tcallawa at redhat.com
Wed Jan 17 17:05:53 UTC 2007
On Wed, 2007-01-17 at 10:36 -0600, Rex Dieter wrote:
> 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.
Well, then, I think I'm of the opinion that anything requiring .la files
is a bug. I'd rather leave the guidelines as is, and consider any
exception cases when all other technical options to resolve the bug have
Opening this door, even just a teeny crack, will let bad packages slide
More information about the Fedora-packaging