On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 01:05:25PM +0200, Enrico Scholz wrote:
... and that you have to put .la files into main packages (which is
adding untracked dependencies) and you slow down module loading...
You are exaggerating. How did RHL, RHEL and FC survive so far?
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"? So your complete statement
is "*.la files are unneccessary, but they are required in the main
package"? Simple logic implies that then the main package is
unneccessary, too. ;)
o How many milliseconds are we losing for module loading through *.la
files? How much faster in percentage do the modules load w/o *.la
files? Are we really going to compare a few hundred ms to several
seconds, especially in light of where dynamic module loading is
really used? Are we then going to rebuild Fedora based on dietlibc
to gain a couple seconds, too?
No, I think the pain and *.la-micro-surgery needs to end. Get *.la
files back and address any remaining issues with libtool upstream. We
can live with a couple more BR in *-devel until this gets resolved. We
did so for several years.
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net