[Fedora-packaging] Package Guildelines / Review Guidelines: .la archives must/should not contradiction

[Richard W.M. Jones]

On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 07:20:50PM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> I believe it should be a MUST with exceptions.  Review Guidelines are
> more succinct and therefore less prone to a slip up when being written
> up.  Even then, there have been times when a Review Guideline uses the
> uppercase, bold '''MUST''' to show that it's a MUST but then used should
> in the sentence describing what needs to be done.
> 
> The only current exception is:
> """
> Note that if you are updating a library in a stable release (not devel)
> and the package already contains *.la files, removing the *.la files
> should be treated as an API/ABI change
> """

There's also an exception for these in the MinGW guidelines, although
(in hindsight) it's wrong and we've been removing the *.la files in
those packages.

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/MinGW#Libraries_.28DLLs.29
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MinGW/Packaging_issues#.2A.la_files

Rich.

-- 
Richard Jones, Emerging Technologies, Red Hat  http://et.redhat.com/~rjones
New in Fedora 11: Fedora Windows cross-compiler. Compile Windows
programs, test, and build Windows installers. Over 70 libraries supprt'd
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MinGW http://www.annexia.org/fedora_mingw