Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 10:28:43 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > >> 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? > > Unless an old or customised copy of libltdl is used -- which has been the > case several times before. One of the more prominent examples was KDE, > albeit a few years ago. Wow, lots of hits at Google when searching for > such issues related to Fedora. > Yeah. KDE3 I showed how to fix it but it was decided to move to KDE4 which doesn't use libltdl rather than fix it in KDE3. As a general rule, using a private copy of a system library would be a violation of the Packaging Guidelines for security reasons so it's probably something we want to patch whenever we find it. >>> 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. > > Except that there has been resistance from some packagers, as they > refuse[d] to remove libtool archives. Perhaps this has changed > meanwhile. ;) > heh :-) That's a good point. But if it's causing issues for dependent packages that want to get rid of the .la then it makes even more sense to tell them they must remove the .la's in their package. -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
