On Sat, 2009-01-03 at 16:07 +0100, Dan Horák wrote: > Manuel Wolfshant píše v So 03. 01. 2009 v 16:39 +0200: > > Huzaifa Sidhpurwala wrote: > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > > > Some time ago there was a long thread regarding libtool files which > > > started with why dia has .la files. > > > > > > I was unable to respond to that thread since i was travelling at that > > > time. In the mean time it seems that someone removed the .la files from > > > dia according to the fedora packaging policy. > > > > > > However now dia crashes with an error message, i have done some > > > preliminary investigation ( Ref BZ 475992 ) and it seems that the > > > source is looking at the la files to determine the libs. > > > > > > I am going to talk to upstream to see if this behaviour can be changed. > > > However my question is in case they dis-agree what are the options do we > > > have? > > > > > > Do we bring the .la files back so that dia works ? > > tough choice... what should we select, a working application with .la > > files included, or a nicely-packaged-but-crashing app ? > > > > IMHO a working application is always preferred :-) But the plugin > loading mechanism can be checked why it requires the *.la files. > There is no deep reason why dias plugin support looks for .la files. It would be a 3 line patch to make it look for .so instead. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
