Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:
On Wed, 2007-01-17 at 17:06 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote:
O
My proposal is to allow *.la files to live and kindly divert people
crying too loud about it to assist upstream in fixing the
issues. Don't forget that there are already patches for dealing with
95% of our issues available.
I'm really not trying to rehash this thread, but the original reason for
nuking .la files was the nasty tendency they had of creating bogus (?)
dependency spirals of doom. Am I wrong in remembering that? If I'm not
wrong, has this been solved somehow?
Nope, still an unsolved problem.
If this is indeed still the case, why would we want to bring them back?
We we're not, the proposal is only changing the "MUST omit" to "SHOULD
omit".
Some packages (still) require .la files for linking (kde *cough*), I'm
just hoping to codify that by saying when/if .la files are required,
they SHOULD/MUST go in -devel.
Maybe we just need to let bygones be bygones and leave the guideline
as-is, and simply make exceptions (kdelibs, etc...) on a case-by-case basis.
-- Rex
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
