On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 05:01:03PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Oct 12, 2006, Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Seems to really depend on the software generating/using them. Or from > > a different viewpoint: if they really were not required (on Linux), > > then why are libtool authors installing them (on Linux)? We wouldn't > > be having this thread if the simple statement ".la files are not > > required" would indeed hold true. > > They're part of the portable libtool library abstraction. Removing > them means you give up some of the portability. Pretending not to have read the following restricting paragraph: If *.la files were indeed unnecessary/redundant on a platform, let's call it *-redhat-no-static-linux-gnu, then *.la file installation could be skipped. But since we only think we live on such a platform this isn't happening. > On GNU/Linux, with the further constraint of not using static > libraries, and only installing libraries in directories searched by > both ld and ld.so, you don't lose or miss anything. So you would lose on /opt and if some lib needs static linking, and this decision is non-local as you properly explained in some other part of this thread. E.g. we would globally remove degrees of freedom for little gain. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpZBqis4MUNV.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
