Packaging policy for libtool .la files

[Michael Schwendt]

On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 10:43:53 +0100, Michal wrote:

> On Sunday 22 February 2009 18:23:35 Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > Sam Varshavchik wrote:
> > > Is there a set of packaging guidelines for libtool's .la files?
> > >
> > > There seems to be some inconsistency here.
> > >
> > > 1) libieee1284 and libieee1284-devel: .la files are installed by
> > > libieee1284-devel rpm
> > >
> > > 2) arts and arts-devel: .la files are installed by the arts rpm
> > >
> > > 3) gnutls: the spec file removes and does not install the .la files
> >
> > #3 is the policy.
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Librar
> >ies (and no, the policy is not only for static libraries).
> >
> 
> Are you sure it's not only for static libraries?

The first chapter refers to libtool archives. Not so obvious, but this is
linked from within a MUST item in the ReviewGuidelines.

> If I understand you correctly 
> then there should be no .la files at all?  I have a lot of them:
> 
> # find /usr/lib64/ | grep '\.la$' | wc -l
> 376

413 here.

$ rpm -ql gegl|grep '\.la$'|wc -l
117
$ rpm -ql ImageMagick | grep '\.la$'|wc -l
102

$ find /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages|grep '\.la$'|wc -l
8

It's an indication that hardly any reviewers/packagers follow the
guidelines. There are also Merge Reviews missing.