On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 10:43:53 +0100, Michal wrote: > On Sunday 22 February 2009 18:23:35 Kevin Kofler wrote: > > Sam Varshavchik wrote: > > > 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 > > > > #3 is the policy. > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Librar > >ies (and no, the policy is not only for static libraries). > > > > Are you sure it's not only for static libraries? The first chapter refers to libtool archives. Not so obvious, but this is linked from within a MUST item in the ReviewGuidelines. > If I understand you correctly > then there should be no .la files at all? I have a lot of them: > > # find /usr/lib64/ | grep '\.la$' | wc -l > 376 413 here. $ rpm -ql gegl|grep '\.la$'|wc -l 117 $ rpm -ql ImageMagick | grep '\.la$'|wc -l 102 $ find /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages|grep '\.la$'|wc -l 8 It's an indication that hardly any reviewers/packagers follow the guidelines. There are also Merge Reviews missing. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
