On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 10:43:53 +0100, Michal wrote:
On Sunday 22 February 2009 18:23:35 Kevin Kofler wrote:
Sam Varshavchik wrote:
Is there a set of packaging guidelines for libtool's .la files?
There seems to be some inconsistency here.
- libieee1284 and libieee1284-devel: .la files are installed by
libieee1284-devel rpm
arts and arts-devel: .la files are installed by the arts rpm
gnutls: the spec file removes and does not install the .la files
#3 is the policy. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Librar ies (and no, the policy is not only for static libraries).
Are you sure it's not only for static libraries?
The first chapter refers to libtool archives. Not so obvious, but this is linked from within a MUST item in the ReviewGuidelines.
If I understand you correctly then there should be no .la files at all? I have a lot of them:
# find /usr/lib64/ | grep '.la$' | wc -l 376
413 here.
$ rpm -ql gegl|grep '.la$'|wc -l 117 $ rpm -ql ImageMagick | grep '.la$'|wc -l 102
$ find /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages|grep '.la$'|wc -l 8
It's an indication that hardly any reviewers/packagers follow the guidelines. There are also Merge Reviews missing.