On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 01:47:08PM +0200, Enrico Scholz wrote: > Axel.Thimm@xxxxxxxxxx (Axel Thimm) writes: > > >> ... and that you have to put .la files into main packages (which is > >> adding untracked dependencies) and you slow down module loading... > > > > 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"? > > AGAIN (and citing [1]): Sentence was written under the assumption that > all .la files will be shipped. > > When .la will not be shipped they do not need to be in main packages > (nor in -devel ones) because they are not shipped. The standard procedure until now is to have *.la files in *-devel files and only have *.la files for dlopen in the main packages. That's what is being discussed. > > 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? > Dunno. But we can save these few milliseconds without any costs by > removing the .la files. Gosh, asserting on every mail that there are no issues with removing *.la files won't make that turn to truth. In fact if you present your arguments as biased I (and others) can't judge on the validity of any of your argumentation. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpJCSzjJDQgR.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
