Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 08:33:31 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > >> Also, as Patrice erroneously points out, some packages will break >> without the *.la files. I have yet to see a package where that's >> actually a "needs" case. However, I have seen places where the upstream >> code looks for the *.la file when libltdl (the libtool library) is >> willing to look for either the *.so or the *.la. > > There are old libltdl libs that don't work if the libtool archives > are missing. The packagers of such apps should know about that. > It's been a while since I looked at this but isn't libltdl a shared library? So in Fedora we should be running against the newer version of libltdl that does work with missing libtool archives? > The other case where removing libtool archives causes breakage is > if there are inter-library dependencies in the .la files. Then you > need to remove all .la files. > True. That doesn't conflict with removing .la files everywhere, though. -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
