On Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 02:04:11AM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 01:08:57 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 01:10:56AM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > > On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 00:15:10 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote: > > > > > > > So let me ask again: What's really that bad about including the > > > > current *.la files into devel by default (unless really needed in main > > > > packages) other than a couple more dependencies between *-devel > > > > packages and how bad are these "bloated" devel interdependencies? > You seem to favour the "bloat" that increases maintenance > requirements for packagers and software developers. No, I don't favour "bloat"ing, you often seem to assume strange things about people you communicate with. > > > It results in pretty much the opposite of trying to eliminate > > > superfluous and redundant BR. You will find that packagers will > > > be confronted again and again with missing BR which are only > > > needed because of direct dependencies between .la files or > > > changes within the libtool dep-chain. > > > > And? One BR perhaps (!) too much for one *.la file. > > They are _wrong_ BR and wrong R even if you insist on barking up the tree > to get leaf packagers to add the bloat in their packages before you would > be able to rebuild your package fine without starting to use ugly work-arounds. The ugly workarounds are what we're doing with selectively nuking *.la files depening on the wind direction. Patches to untangle build and runtime dependencies from libtools are already available and used by other distribuitions and upstream authors are more than willing to understand what your issues are and fix it in libtool proper, so please put the efforts there instead of rebreaking the distro on every single kde change. Not to mention that kde is just one user of the runtime *.la there may be others now and in the future. Let's not waste ourselves on ugly workarounds and keep *.la files until libtool does better. The few "bloated" build dependencies that force our build servers to waste ten seconds more per package build are not really worth it. And again: There are patches fixing most of it already, even tested in the field by other distros since *years*. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpHQzaI67bEF.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
