On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 01:05:25PM +0200, Enrico Scholz wrote: > ... and that you have to put .la files into main packages (which is > adding untracked dependencies) and you slow down module loading... You are exaggerating. How did RHL, RHEL and FC survive so far? o Can you show a list of bugs related to main packages missing *.la files to compare the pains? And doesn't this contradict your statement "*.la files are unneccessary"? So your complete statement is "*.la files are unneccessary, but they are required in the main package"? Simple logic implies that then the main package is unneccessary, too. ;) o How many milliseconds are we losing for module loading through *.la files? How much faster in percentage do the modules load w/o *.la files? Are we really going to compare a few hundred ms to several seconds, especially in light of where dynamic module loading is really used? Are we then going to rebuild Fedora based on dietlibc to gain a couple seconds, too? No, I think the pain and *.la-micro-surgery needs to end. Get *.la files back and address any remaining issues with libtool upstream. We can live with a couple more BR in *-devel until this gets resolved. We did so for several years. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpFbMVPsfB1w.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
