Is there a set of packaging guidelines for libtool's .la files? There seems to be some inconsistency here.1) libieee1284 and libieee1284-devel: .la files are installed by libieee1284-devel rpm
2) arts and arts-devel: .la files are installed by the arts rpm 3) gnutls: the spec file removes and does not install the .la files
From what I can tell, #1 should be the policy. I do not believe that .lafiles are needed at runtime. libtool uses them only during the compile and link cycle. Furthermore, I'd question the decision to remove them completely, unless having them actually creates a problem.
I needed to work with a newer version of gnutls. I used the spec file and forced _prefix to /usr/local, to have everything installed there.
What I found that even if I properly build and link against /usr/local, at runtime my rpath is not set correctly, and the binary loads /usr/lib64/libgnutls.so.26, instead of /usr/local/lib64/libgnutls.so.26, even though I linked against it. I had to hack out the spec file and put the .la files into libgnutls-devel, so that at linktime, libtool could sprinkle its pixie dust and put the correct rpath into the resulting ELF object.
Attachment:
pgpv4q62FEAps.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
