On Wed, 2007-01-17 at 10:36 -0600, Rex Dieter wrote: > 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. Well, then, I think I'm of the opinion that anything requiring .la files is a bug. I'd rather leave the guidelines as is, and consider any exception cases when all other technical options to resolve the bug have been exhausted. Opening this door, even just a teeny crack, will let bad packages slide right through. ~spot -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
