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

Axel Thimm Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Thu Jan 18 00:08:57 UTC 2007

On Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 01:10:56AM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 00:15:10 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > So let me ask again: What's really that bad about including the
> > current *.la files into devel by default (unless really needed in main
> > packages) other than a couple more dependencies between *-devel
> > packages and how bad are these "bloated" devel interdependencies?
> Unfortunately, the "couple of more dependencies" is visible in the
> BuildRequires tree, too.

Yes, that's what *-devel packages are about.

> It results in pretty much the opposite of trying to eliminate
> superfluous and redundant BR. You will find that packagers will be
> confronted again and again with missing BR which are only needed
> because of direct dependencies between .la files or changes within
> the libtool dep-chain.

And? One BR perhaps (!) too much for one *.la file.
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/20070118/da3545b4/attachment.sig>

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list