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

Michael Schwendt bugs.michael at gmx.net
Thu Jan 18 01:45:57 UTC 2007

On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 02:04:47 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote:

> No, I don't favour "bloat"ing, you often seem to assume strange things
> about people you communicate with.

It's just you, Axel. It's triggered by your strange replies. ;) I try to
explain the problem to you and in return only get something like "Yes,
that's what *-devel packages are about" which tells me you are not

> > > > 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.
> > 
> > They are _wrong_ BR and wrong R even if you insist on barking up the tree
> > to get leaf packagers to add the bloat in their packages before you would
> > be able to rebuild your package fine without starting to use ugly work-arounds.
> The ugly workarounds are what we're doing with selectively nuking *.la
> files depening on the wind direction. Patches to untangle build and
> runtime dependencies from libtools are already available and used by
> other distribuitions and upstream authors are more than willing to
> understand what your issues are and fix it in libtool proper, so
> please put the efforts there instead of rebreaking the distro on every
> single kde change. Not to mention that kde is just one user of the
> runtime *.la there may be others now and in the future.

As much as I support upstream changes, it is beyond my motivation to be
the one to take the lead here. I have not even seen any solutions other
than killing .la files except where the used ltdl doesn't understand .so

Btw, see e.g. KDE's missing response:
Very disappointing.

> Let's not waste ourselves on ugly workarounds and keep *.la files
> until libtool does better. The few "bloated" build dependencies that
> force our build servers to waste ten seconds more per package build
> are not really worth it. And again: There are patches fixing most of
> it already, even tested in the field by other distros since *years*.

Once more, the bloat also affects the linking and hence the *binary*

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list