On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 02:48:47 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote:
> As much as I support upstream changes, it is beyond my
motivation to
> be the one to take the lead here.
But it is your motivation obviously to head towards the opposite
direction.
You often seem to assume strange things about people you communicate with.
Oh, wait, that was a quote from your previous mail!
Actually, the "opposite direction" is what you propose, i.e. to bring back
the .la problems before an alternative solution is implemented.
> I have not even seen any solutions other than killing .la files
> except where the used ltdl doesn't understand .so files.
Maybe because your toolbox at home only has a hammer?
Lame metaphors are an effective way to kill communication.
How many times did I mention in this thread that there are working
patches even used for quite some time in other distros?
Why don't you collect them and present them for review?
But to do you a favour, let's return to a previous message. Quoting
Axel:
My proposal is to allow *.la files to live and kindly divert people
crying too loud about it to assist upstream in fixing the issues.
Don't forget that there are already patches for dealing with
95% of our issues available.
Clever! First you prepare the road with phrases like "people crying too
loud" before you try to subvert established packaging techniques:
So let me ask again: What's really that bad about including the
current *.la files into devel by default (unless really needed in main
packages) other than a couple more dependencies between *-devel
packages and how bad are these "bloated" devel interdependencies?
I wish you would have the courage to explain what the benefits of bringing
back .la files would be before a solution is supported upstream. What
are the "95% of our issues" and how do the patches avoid them?