On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 02:48:47 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > As much as I support upstream changes, it is beyond my motivation to
> > be the one to take the lead here.
>
> But it is your motivation obviously to head towards the opposite
> direction.
You often seem to assume strange things about people you communicate with.
Oh, wait, that was a quote from your previous mail!
Actually, the "opposite direction" is what you propose, i.e. to bring back
the .la problems before an alternative solution is implemented.
> > I have not even seen any solutions other than killing .la files
> > except where the used ltdl doesn't understand .so files.
>
> Maybe because your toolbox at home only has a hammer?
Lame metaphors are an effective way to kill communication.
> How many times did I mention in this thread that there are working
> patches even used for quite some time in other distros?
Why don't you collect them and present them for review?
But to do you a favour, let's return to a previous message. Quoting
Axel:
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.
Clever! First you prepare the road with phrases like "people crying too
loud" before you try to subvert established packaging techniques:
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?
I wish you would have the courage to explain what the benefits of bringing
back .la files would be before a solution is supported upstream. What
are the "95% of our issues" and how do the patches avoid them?
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
