On 2011-03-21 14:13 -0500, Paul Elliott wrote: > On Monday, March 21, 2011 12:51:11 pm Nick Bowler wrote: > > Since Fedora has complete control over how packages are configured > > and installed, they can afford to make the necessary arrangements > > rendering the .la files unnecessary. [...] > Well, the openSUSE:Shared library packaging policy > http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Packaging_guidelines#Libraries > says the same thing. [...] > Also the debian policy Manual > http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-files.html > says the same thing for most cases
The same reasoning that applies to Fedora also applies to these other distros. > All the distros do say that if you are not installing the library in one of > the standard places, like, /lib /usr/lib, then you should leave the .la file > there. Absolutely! So tell me why you want to prevent the user from installing the .la file at all, again? > But all the distros seem to basicly agree that in the default case > where your library is going to be linked by other programs and you are > installing in the usual places, the la file should be removed. Again, they can do this because they control how all the distro packages are configured and installed. > It seems dumb to have make install install a file only to have the distro > remove it, is there anyway to tell make install not to install it? I pity the user of your package who will run 'make install' and end up with a non-functioning library. -- Nick Bowler, Elliptic Technologies (http://www.elliptictech.com/)
