Packaging policy for libtool .la files

[Jason L Tibbitts III]

>>>>> "MS" == Michael Schwendt <mschwendt at gmail.com> writes:

MS> $ rpm -ql ImageMagick | grep '\.la$'|wc -l
MS> 102

MS> It's an indication that hardly any reviewers/packagers follow the
MS> guidelines.

Very far from fair to mention ImageMagick.  The issue was addressed in
the ImageMagic merge review, which points back to earlier problems
when the .la files were originally removed from the package.  The only
real sin here is the fact that it's not explicitly documented in the
spec file, only mentioned in the changelog entries.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225897
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=185237

"The package breaks without the .la files" is a reasonable exemption
to the guidelines.  It's pretty easy to see what's going on if you
actually look at the merge review instead of simply accusing accusing
people of blindly ignoring the guidelines.

 - J<