[Fedora-packaging] Re: libtool(.la) archive policy proposal

[Alexandre Oliva]

On Oct 13, 2006, Enrico Scholz <enrico.scholz at informatik.tu-chemnitz.de> wrote:

> aoliva at redhat.com (Alexandre Oliva) writes:
>>> no; 'libbar.la' might be used by a 'libbaz.la' loadable module which
>>> is added to the repository a year later by a different maintainer.
>> 
>> Not if libbar.la was not installed.

> So you suggest to avoid packaging of .la files?

I understand that was the proposal on the table, and I don't see
reasons against that given the constraints exposed so far.  It's not
my suggestion, and I wouldn't say I actively promote it, but I don't
mind it, and I did mind arguments that were brought up against it, so
I voiced my opinion against the arguments ;-)

-- 
Alexandre Oliva         http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Secretary for FSF Latin America        http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer   aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist  oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}