Wulf C. Krueger wrote:
Hello!
I think flameeyes should have sent this himself in the first place, but
since he's clearly not going to do that and prefers to just force it on
our users I'm mailing this...
flameeyes talked about .la files in his blog recently:
http://blog.flameeyes.eu/articles/2008/04/14/what-about-those-la-files
Now he decided that simply removing them for several packages, resulting
in http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=218286 and its dupes.
This is annoying for quite a few users as they will have to rebuild lots
of stuff for KDE, Gnome and other packages and I'm not sure if this is
really the way we want to fix --as-needed failures.
That or just remove the other .la.
Furthermore, such things should not be decided and pushed through
unilaterally but be agreed upon here prior to doing this change.
Agreed, even if it is relatively low profile IMHO.
Especially since even though removing .la files might make sense (with
exceptions, of course) we should think about either doing it
distribution-wide or not at all.
I'll put as item for the council meeting if we don't reach consensus before.
In the other news I advise to start asking library upstreams to provide
pkgconfig files (and/or push patches providing that).
lu
--
Luca Barbato
Gentoo Council Member
Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
