On Sat, 2006-10-14 at 13:58 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 02:45:31PM +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote: > > On Sat, 2006-10-14 at 13:29 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > > > On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 02:20:19PM +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote: > > > > > > > ...and in many cases, end up unnecessarily bloating linkage of > > > > binaries/libs in main packages too, making things like soname changes > > > > even more painful than they already are... > > > > > > I think the thread made clear that this is not the case. > > > > If it did, I missed it. Got any pointers to posts that support the > > above conclusion to share? > > How about this thread? No, honestly check the discussion especially > Alexandre's posts who goes into the details of both libtool and > non-libtool library internals. https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2006-October/msg00080.html I think this is the best statement from Alexandre of the facts which he works out over the course of the message. I think there are two options for what to do about it: A) Get rid of .la's with the possible exception of when static libraries are kept (maybe this can go along with Ralf's Static Library proposal). Uses of lt_dlopen("foo.la") are bugs and should be fixed by converting to lt_dlopenext("foo") B) Keep all *.la's and create the complete Requires chains specified by the .la file (could be automated some day.) And also have Application packages that use lt_dlopen("foo.la") Require: the chains of library file *.la's that contain them. (Which either means application packages Requiring: *-devel packages or application and main library packages (libfoo rather than libfoo-devel) holding the *.la's) -Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
