On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 01:47:08PM +0200, Enrico Scholz wrote:
Axel.Thimm(a)ATrpms.net (Axel Thimm) writes:
>> ... and that you have to put .la files into main packages (which is
>> adding untracked dependencies) and you slow down module loading...
> o Can you show a list of bugs related to main packages missing *.la
> files to compare the pains? And doesn't this contradict your
> statement "*.la files are unneccessary"?
AGAIN (and citing ): Sentence was written under the assumption that
all .la files will be shipped.
When .la will not be shipped they do not need to be in main packages
(nor in -devel ones) because they are not shipped.
The standard procedure until now is to have *.la files in *-devel
files and only have *.la files for dlopen in the main packages. That's
what is being discussed.
> o How many milliseconds are we losing for module loading through
> files? How much faster in percentage do the modules load w/o *.la
Dunno. But we can save these few milliseconds without any costs by
removing the .la files.
Gosh, asserting on every mail that there are no issues with removing
*.la files won't make that turn to truth. In fact if you present your
arguments as biased I (and others) can't judge on the validity of any
of your argumentation.
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net