Rex Dieter wrote: > Dan Horák wrote: > >> IMHO a working application is always preferred :-) But the plugin >> loading mechanism can be checked why it requires the *.la files. > The only time I've seen .la files really being needed was with KDE-3. And that wasn't so much an issue that couldn't be solved as the KDE sig wanting to put effort into KDE-4 rather than working on the deficincies in KDE-3. > +1. The problematic .la files that should be avoided are those associated with (linkable) shlibs. Plugin .la files are mostly harmless. > I thought Michael Schwendt pointed out times when plugin .la's would cause issues as well. Is this chain of reasoning correct: Plugin .la encodes need for library foo's .la. foo .la is packaged in the -devel subpackage. Plugins now drag in the -devel package and its dep chain. -Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
