On Oct 13, 2006, Enrico Scholz <enrico.scholz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > aoliva@xxxxxxxxxx (Alexandre Oliva) writes: >>> no; 'libbar.la' might be used by a 'libbaz.la' loadable module which >>> is added to the repository a year later by a different maintainer. >> >> Not if libbar.la was not installed. > So you suggest to avoid packaging of .la files? I understand that was the proposal on the table, and I don't see reasons against that given the constraints exposed so far. It's not my suggestion, and I wouldn't say I actively promote it, but I don't mind it, and I did mind arguments that were brought up against it, so I voiced my opinion against the arguments ;-) -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Secretary for FSF Latin America http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org} -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
