On 11.01.2025 12:05, Patrice Dumas wrote:
On Sat, Jan 11, 2025 at 10:31:25AM +0000, Gavin Smith wrote:
Hello,
What was the reason for removing the .la files in the first place? Why would you expect that you could remove files that a package installs with nothing going wrong? Is it usual to remove .la files in other contexts?Hilmar may have a different answer, but it happens that in the past I was a Fedora packager and the policy to remove .la files, which can be seen here was already in place: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#packaging-static-libraries
For Debian we have a similar answer on [1]. <quote>If the .la must be included, it should be included in the development (-dev) package, unless the library will be loaded by libtool’s libltdl library. If it is intended for use with libltdl, the .la files must go in the run-time library package.
</quote>As I didn't know how the .so files were found / opened I tested if texi2any works w/o the .la files, noticed it did and asked here if the .la files are needed.
I actually am convinced by this reasoning, which is why I think that we should try to make sure that .la files are not needed in Texinfo on platforms with good support for shared and dlopened libraries.
As far as I understand this is now implemented and as of TeXinfo 7.x (x > 2) the .la can be dropped, correct?
Many thanks for implementation! Hilmar [1] https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-files.html#libraries
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
