rdieter(a)math.unl.edu (Rex Dieter) writes:
>> Huh? .la libtool archives in LD_LIBRARY_PATH are those used
for *linking*,
>> so why not -devel?
> E.g. /usr/lib/kde3/kded_kdeprintd.la contains
> | dependency_libs=' ... /usr/lib/libkio.la ... '
> --> /usr/lib/libkio.la is needed at runtime and must be in a main
> package.
Not necessarily. Just because something is listed as a
dependency_lib, and it is missing, does not make loading it fail.
(Try it, or trust me, *I* have, for kde bits anyway).
The decision whether loading fails or succeeds depends on the module,
not the library. Your .la packaging proposal applies to the library
("MUST be included in -devel ") and because the use-cases of libraries
can usually not be predicted you have to assume that loading will fail
when listed .la files are not available.
Besides, did you miss my comment in the proposal that kde is fixable
to not require .la files at runtime *at all*? (:
Current KDE is just a handy real-world example; I do not have time to
search for example where loading requires dependency_libs instead of
ELF's NEEDED entries.
> Saying that packager has to decide on a case-by-case base does
not help;
It's better than the status-quo of saying .la files MUST (always) be
omitted.
Your proposal is not better: it will make reviewers cry when .la files
are in main instead of -devel.
IMO, a rule like ".la files MUST be always omitted, unless the package
does not work else" is better than ".la files MUST be always in -devel".
First rule can be checked by the packager/reviewer at review-request
time. Latter rule might trigger problems years later with completely
independent packages.
Enrico