Rex Dieter wrote:
Jeremy Hinegardner wrote:
I'm doing a couple of Merge Reviews for apr[1] and apr-util[2] and there
seems to be an issue over the inclusion of the .la files in the
apr-devel and apr-util-devel rpms.
According to the Review Guidelines .la files are NOT allowed, but I have
been informed via the bugzilla tickets that the .la files in these
packages are required and cannot be removed.
...
[1] - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225253
[2] - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225254
There are always exceptions, though I'll take a closer look myself
tomorrow. I would venture that apr/apr-util is fixable, whether that
means moving the .la files to -static or omitting altogether.
Upon further investigation, I'm not convinced (yet) that including .la
files here is justified, though I've asked Joe for clarification of his
position on that:
http://bugzilla.redhat.com/225253#c11
fwiw, I've rebuilt apr/apr-util/subversion/neon with .la files omitted,
and haven't discovered any immediate problems.
The only hint of his motivation I've found (so far) was in the neon
merge review on this same topic:
http://bugzilla.redhat.com/226189
"- the .la file is part of the defined interface so will not be dropped.
(it's used by third-party apps via "neon-config --la-file"
I'm not sure I buy this argument, and I'd argue 3rd party apps should be
fixed to not rely on the .la file(s) being present.
Opinions?
-- Rex
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
